Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified. Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Income Support

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to give income support to 16 to 18-year-olds for whom the Government have not found a YTS place.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): No, Sir.

Mr. Macdonald: Has the Minister considered the case of my constituent, Mr. Calum Morrison, the details of which I sent to him on Friday? My constituent will be

leaving school at Christmas and will have to wait seven months before an appropriate YTS place becomes available. Does the Minister appreciate that there are a number of young people in my constituency in exactly the same circumstances? Will he therefore agree to restore eligibility for income support to youngsters who are willing to work and train, but for whom no work and training is available? Does he agree with Prince Edward that the denial of income support in those circumstances is a blow that could wreck a young man's life?

Mr. Scott: The facts are slightly different from those presented by the hon. Gentleman. The young man concerned was offered a similar training scheme with the construction industry training board to start in January. However, it was located in Inverness and, for his own reasons, he decided that he would prefer to wait for a local course. It remains an option for the young man to remain in school until the end of the academic year. There are two schools which could offer him full courses during that time and he could then move straight on to his youth training scheme.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not stop the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) at the time, but I remind him that we do not use the names of members of the royal family to support our arguments.

Mr. McCrindle: Although I generally endorse the Government's policy of weaning young people away from state benefits, does my hon. Friend recognise that a place has not yet been found on a YTS for some 16 to 18-year-olds who are both unemployed and homeless? Will he tell me whether consideration is being given to flexibility in the operation of that rule? Is this not an ideal example of targeting benefits where the need is greatest?

Mr. Scott: First, the number of places available exceeds the number of people wishing to take them up in every region of the country. Secondly, vulnerable groups are of course able to receive income support and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State retains a power to pay that benefit where, otherwise, exceptional hardship might be caused.

Ms. Mowlam: The Minister has just said that there is an excess of places in specific regions. Statistically, that may be the case, but is he aware that the difficulties of a youngster in travelling from Redcar to Hartlepool, and the costs incurred, are similar to those faced by the youngster in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) in travelling from the Western Isles to Inverness? It is ludicrous for the Minister to suggest that young people can make such journeys without any financial assistance.

Mr. Scott: Unless the young person is particularly vulnerable and falls within those groups, or is likely to suffer exceptional hardship, I take the view that it is better for him to obtain a YTS place, even if that involves some travel, rather than start life on benefit.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) has implied that there are young people who cannot get youth training schemes and therefore they cannot get other benefits. They may be required to live on their own. They therefore have no income support. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that any young person can, if he so wishes, get a youth training scheme and, if he does so, will then qualify for the other benefit?

Mr. Scott: I confirm exactly what my hon. Friend has said.

Severe Weather Payments

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the effect of the wind-chill factor in determining the eligibility of claimants for exceptionally severe weather payments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Only one recently, from the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Wallace: I am very grateful to the Minister for the reply that he sent me last week. Does he agree that it is not acceptable, when the meteorological office can find precise ways to measure the wind-chill factor, for him to give as a reason for not incorporating those measurements the excuse that they would lead to uncertainty? Does he accept that the wind-chill factor is a real element for many people and that draughts can cause more discomfort, particularly to the elderly, than the air-ground temperature, which is the current basis for measurements? Will he consider the evidence from the meteorological office and agree to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. The main factor is air temperature. Wind-chill is a much lesser factor. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to state that wind-chill would not complicate matters. It certainly would and it would make the system much less fair. Top-floor flats would fare much worse in that respect than ground-floor flats and southern aspects are much better than north-facing aspects.
The benefit of the scheme that we have introduced is that it is easy to understand, easy to administer and payments can be made very quickly on the basis of air temperature, which is overwhelmingly the main factor.

Mr. Flynn: The Minister has shown eloquently just how insupportable is the scheme. Does he recall that when it

was put to the test in the winter of 1987, it collapsed under the weight of its own absurdity and complexity? Should it not now be replaced by a scheme that is much easier to understand, where payments are decided automatically at a national level, and paid automatically? Simply advertising the scheme last time cost the equivalent of 82,000 severe weather payments. For how many more winters are the Government going to dole out cold comfort in a scheme that is crude, wasteful, unintelligible and paltry?

Mr. Lloyd: The present scheme is much improved in comparison to that to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It stands no comparison with what existed when the Labour party was in office, because there was no such scheme. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to suggest, in contradiction to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), that there should be a national figure to trigger payments rather than a regional one? The hon. Gentleman should know, and hon. Members from Scotland will support this, that different regions experience very different weather at different times. Our system is far fairer than that suggested by the hon. Gentleman because it recognises that.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a large element of cant and hypocrisy in the comments—[Interruption.] How much was spent on the payments in 1978–79 and how much was spent in the last tax year?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. There was no such scheme under Labour. The scheme worked very well last year. We have improved it further and it will work better still.

Family Credit

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the take-up of family credit.

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the take-up of family credit.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): Since the start of the new scheme over 450,000 claims have been received. At the end of November, over 260,000 families were receiving family credit. In addition, about 47,000 claims were on hand, 32,000 of which were awaiting replies from inquiries to employers or claimants. Overall, the underlying caseload is now approaching 300,000.

Mr. Boyes: Are not the figures still well below the 60 per cent. objective or target that was set? Are they not well below the 40 per cent. to which the Secretary of State is said to have referred to because he takes into consideration the fact that not everyone who submits a claim will be successful? Is form FC1 not one of the problems? I do not know how many hon. Members have seen that form which people must fill in. It consists of 16 pages, 13 sections and almost 100 questions in small type. I went through the form this morning trying to fill it in and I had a hell of a problem. Does the Secretary of State agree that making that form simpler would help matters? Will the Secretary of State press his colleague, the Chief Secretary to the


Treasury to provide £500,000 for an advertising campaign to help people take up family credit? If one Department can get such sums, I hope that the Secretary of State will fight for it as well.

Mr. Moore: I shall correct some of the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary inaccuracies. First, there has been, and continues to be, a sizeable advertising campaign. As compared with the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, more than £3 million has already been spent and more is currently being spent on a targeted campaign. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that still more is needed.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, about form FC1, although he personally may have difficulty with it, by comparison with the old family income supplement system, the success rate using the form about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, and with which he has such difficulty, is more than 70 per cent. Having said that, if there is any way in which we can improve form FC1 and the method of application, we shall certainly consider it. If one makes the form too short and too simple, one has the problem that the process may have to be gone through twice.
As to the hon. Gentleman's first point—he made many—I stress that, on the figures that I gave him, we are running at a caseload of nearly 40 per cent. That takes into account the expectation that some applications will not be successful.

Mrs. Roe: How much is being spent on providing family credit as compared with family income support?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend raises a point that I would have covered had I not been too extensive with my previous reply. We are spending at more than double the rate that the expenditure pattern was under FIS. That very successful expenditure pattern is illustrative of the degree to which family credit is helping those families in greatest need.

Mr. Eastham: Earlier, the Minister made reference to there being 260,000 recipients of family credit by the end of November. Does the Minister agree with estimates that 750,000 people are probably entitled to benefit? Is there not a possibility that those who qualify feel that there is a stigma attached to making an application, because of means testing, which creates indignity and acts as a deterrent to taking up benefit? In Manchester, 4,000 families have taken up family credit, from which one can calculate that more than 12,000 families are actually entitled to it. When will the Government do something to make the public understand that there should be no stigma; understandably people are appalled at the very idea of a means-test system.

Mr. Moore: I accept entirely the aims behind the hon. Gentleman's question. We should make clear that no stigma is attached to the current benefit, which I recollect was welcomed by both sides of the House on its introduction. The problem is not of stigma, but of trying to attract attention to and publicising family credit—of trying to get it across to people and to communicate. The take-up is reasonable, but it is not yet at the levels that I and right hon. and hon. Members would wish. Anything that I and the Government can do by way of targeting of the kind that we are now undertaking—at post offices,

which people visit to collect child benefit—will be welcomed and encouraged by us and, I know, by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Madel: As this is an important benefit for those having modest incomes but who still have to pay mortgages or rents, and rates, will my right hon. Friend ask local authorities and building societies to see what they can do to publicise it?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point—[Interruption.] It is extraordinary that Opposition Members, who are supposed to be concerned about people who are on low incomes and about low employment figures, do not seem to be interested in helping to publicise a benefit such as family credit. Those right hon. and hon. Members who are genuinely concerned, as opposed to those who are concerned with the politics of care rather than with real care, will continue making sensible suggestions, as does my hon. Friend. I shall certainly consider them.

Mr. Frank Field: When will the Government meet their modest objective of achieving a 50 per cent. take-up rate? May the House be given a Christmas bonus today and be told the actual date?

Mr. Moore: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the House will not have its Christmas bonus withdrawn as a consequence of Labour's economic failure. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I am as disappointed as he is about the take-up so far. However, I am not over-disappointed at the level of expenditure, which is now running in excess of that planned. The hon. Gentleman also knows—and I shall return to this point in a later question—that there is an enormous distinction to be made between the expenditure pattern and actual caseload take-up. Expenditure is already running at a level greater than that which we anticipated.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most effective means of working towards a higher take-up is the campaign in the post offices, through which mothers with child benefit books can receive leaflets giving full details of family credit? Is my right hon. Friend certain that the post offices are making the leaflets readily available to their targets?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the second stage of the campaign: there has already been advertising in the national media, including television. Along with the current radio campaign, a targeted leaflet campaign is taking place in the post offices, and so far take-up has been excellent. I want to study the results carefully to see whether any similar campaigns will be necessary before the next major television advertising campaign.

Mr. Kirkwood: I recognise the need for increased information and publicity. Does the Secretary of State recognise, however, that all that will be to no avail if there are not enough properly trained staff to deal with and process the claims? Will he comment on last month's Public Accounts Committee report, which had some disturbing things to say about the resources devoted to staff in local offices?

Mr. Moore: As the hon. Gentleman follows these issues with care, he should distinguish between matters


concerning local offices and the way in which the benefit is being handled at north Fylde. There have been no problems with the new system apart from initial difficulties. The only additional complication at north Fylde was caused by the postal strike earlier in the year. In all other respects, arrangements there are working excellently. The only other difficulty that sometimes delays receipt of family credit is the need to refer to the employer for additional information, and we are not far from our target of 18 days' turnround from the time of application.

Social Fund (Applications)

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretry of State for Social Security how many requests for review of a refusal of assistance under the social fund have been received to the latest convenient date; how many such reviews have been completed; and what proportion of those reviewed have led to a reversal of the previous decision.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: By 31 October 54,925 applications for review had been received by social fund officers. They revised their decisions in 30 per cent. of those cases. I regret that information about the number of reviews completed in DSS local offices is not available.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the review system is extremely speedy compared with the previous appeals system that applied under the equivalent single payment regulations? Does he also agree that it appears to dispense no less justice?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is quite right. One of the merits of the new system is the speed of review. Reviews by social fund officers take a matter of days, and outside reviews by social fund inspectors are completed in an average of 17 days. That compares with 21 weeks for appeal under the old single payment system.

Mr. Tony Banks: But why are one in three of them wrong at the point of application? That is the truth behind the statistics that the Minister has given. They mask a great deal of misery and suffering throughout the country. The Minister is playing Scrooge, but without Scrooge's generosity and open heart.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman would display his talent for indignation even more if the review did not lead to any changes.
The statistics were intended to show that in 30 per cent. of cases the social fund officer considered it right to think again. That is wholly beneficial in a brand new system in which officers for the first time must exercise discretion, which is one of the merits of the system. That the changes are under review shows that decisions are being thought about hard, and that bodes well for the continuing success of the scheme.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister recall that, whether on review or on initial decisions, some 7 per cent. of those rejected for social fund loans are rejected because they are already so in debt they simply cannot afford to repay a loan? Since by definition those people must be the poorest of all, how do the Government square that with their claim to target help on those in the greatest need?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. Lady's logic is impeccable. The fact that people are already in debt does not necessarily mean that they are the poorest; it means

that they are the people who borrowed the most. It would be stupid to bring into the system an additional loan making the debt even harder to repay. In any event, the scheme is so devised that in cases of real hardship the officer can extend the period of repayment so that essential purchases and loan payments can be made.

Pensions

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will express in terms of an index of real values the amount of pension received by a single pensioner and a married couple at the latest available date, and the comparable figure (a) two, (b) five and (c) 10 years ago.

Mr. Moore: Taking November 1976 as the base expressed as 100, the index by income units of retirement pension and income-related benefits, plus occupational pension, was, in 1981, 113·7, in 1984, 125·9 and in 1986, 133·6, respectively.

Mr. Dykes: My right hon. Friend and I can imagine what the index equivalent would have been in 1978 or 1979. Do not those figures speak volumes? Do they not show that, once again, when it comes to the aggregate deal that pensioners in this country receive, from Labour they get rhetoric and propaganda and from us they get real results?

Mr. Moore: I am delighted to say that I could not have expressed that better than my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if the Tory Government had not scrapped the link between pensions and average national earnings, pensioners would be receiving a substantially greater sum than that which they now receive?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the very point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made—that the supposed support for pensioners while the Labour Government were in office meant that, on average, the pensioner had an increase—[Interruption.] It is relatively important to the pensioner. The pensioner had an increase of less than 3 per cent. during the whole period when the Labour Government were in office, compared with the 23 per cent. increase that they have already received under this Government.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the achievement of a substantial increase in real terms is particularly significant in the light of the very considerable increase in the number of pensioners as a whole, which has resulted in a greater call on resources? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, thanks to the substantial growth of the economy, the great majority of pensioners who are retiring now can look forward to a substantial income from the pension that relates to their former employment?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. It is a fundamental mistake to fail to notice the extra 1 million pensioners who are, I am happy to say, living longer. It is also a mistake not to recognise the combination of benefits to which a pensioner is entitled, a combination that is so often ignored by the Opposition, who nearly destroyed for a whole generation of pensioners the work and the thrift that had been put into their savings.

Mr. Battle: Does the Secretary of State agree that when the pension increase to which he referred is coupled with the reductions in housing benefit, very many pensioners are worse off because their disposable income is much less?

Mr. Moore: Again that is utter nonsense. If it had been at the back of his question. I should have given the statistics to the hon. Gentleman, but I draw his attention to the appalling problem that pensioners faced over relative increases in housing benefit, along with rent increases, during the period when the Labour Government were in office. That was not, of course, his question, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to examine those figures with too much care because he would then realise how appalling was the Labour Government's record.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: How does the value of pensioners' income in the United Kingdom compare with those of pensioners in the European Community as a whole?

Mr. Moore: Pensioners here do very much better than pensioners in most of the European Community countries. The pensioner in this country receives benefits on top of his basic state pension. If the Opposition had any interest at all in the real lot of the pensioner, they would understand that only two other nations in Western Europe offer to all pensioners a similar basic rate pension entitlement. It means that all pensioners here, especially the poor, have a basic pension, unlike those countries, quoted in bizarre literature produced by the Opposition, that do not offer to pensioners the same basic pension and where those on very low income, receive practically no pension at all. If those are the politics of the new Socialist party, heaven help the pensioners.

Child Benefit

Mr. Terry Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he received following his decision to freeze child benefit.

Mr. Moore: I have received less than 200 letters on child benefit since my uprating statement on 27 October.

Mr. Davis: Have any of those representations made the point that the people who are most badly affected by this decision are those who are working for low wages and that the take-up rate for child benefit is 100 per cent., compared with 40 per cent. for family credit?

Mr. Moore: It is not 100 per cent.; it is less than that. To be precise, it is 98 per cent. There is a difference. The facts to which the hon. Gentleman refers rightly draw attention to problems with the take-up of family credit, but that does not deny to families the opportunity and the ability, with the help of hon. Members, to avail themselves of family credit. That would mean an increase of almost double what they would have received, had they simply received a flat rate increase in child benefit.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many Conservative Members do not feel that child benefit as presently constituted is best targeted? Will he particularly bear in mind the importance of ensuring that those very large sums of money go to the families and the children who are most in need and are not spread in the very untargeted fashion that they are at present?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House that the absence of an uprating this year does not exclude the fact that we are spending £4·5 billion on child benefit in the coming year. He was right to remind the House that 70 per cent. of child benefit goes to families with above average incomes.

Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State accept that information about child benefit and family credit will be much harder to obtain if benefit shops in Bradford, Shipley and Keighley close on Friday and are not re-opened next year? Will he call upon Bradford council to keep those advice shops open pending a meeting that I have requested with Ministers of his Department, Members of Parliament and other representatives from Bradford? Will he urge Bradford council to keep those shops open pending the outcome of that meeting because of the urgency of the situation in which many people will be placed early next year?

Mr. Moore: I am tempted to say that I admire the way in which the hon. Member has got in the point about which he has written to me, but that might only encourage such activity. I remind him, as I did through my Office and in correspondence, that the benefit offices for which I am responsible remain open arid able to give capable advice.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most child benefit is paid to households who pay out more in taxation than they receive in benefits of one kind or another, and is, therefore, a badly targeted benefit? Does he understand the extraordinary attitude of the Opposition who oppose tax cuts for average earners, yet are prepared to shower child benefit on the rich?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that more than 80 per cent. of families in receipt of child benefit are taxpayers and have benefited more than somewhat from the reduction in taxation this year and in previous years.

Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the lifetime of this Government successive Chancellors have raised the married man's allowance by 22 per cent. while successive Secretaries of State for Social Security have cut child benefit by 13 per cent? Will he explain by what leap of mental gymnastics his Government have concluded that the cost of maintaining a wife has gone up by one fifth but the cost of bringing up a child has gone down by one eighth? Will he also explain why they regard universal tax allowances as being well targeted, but universal benefits as being badly targeted?

Mr. Moore: I find it almost incomprehensible that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I occasionally have some fondness, has the temerity to make any comparison across the Floor of the House about the relative help and support for families with children between the Opposition when in office and the Government. In only one out of 62 sad months while they were in office did their ability to help families with children come anywhere near the complete record of the Government in office. That is their record of failure and it is an appalling base on which to ask a question.

Administration (Paperwork)

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps is he taking to reduce paperwork relating to social security administration.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The operational strategy—our innovative and massive programme to computerise social security administration—means that by mid-1991 most local office work will be computerised. That will result in a considerable reduction in paper records as well as producing a more efficient service for customers and better jobs for staff.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is continuing the work started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), now Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in simplifying the forms, and that the computerisation will enable us as Members of Parliament to get slightly swifter answers to the queries that we send to what was the DHSS and is now the DSS than we are receiving at present?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, it should certainly help the latter. More importantly, it will enable us to get information more quickly to the claimants. As for the leaflets and forms to which my hon. Friend referred, we have reviewed all our forms. We still have more work to do on them, but the object is to make them fewer in number, clearer and easier to follow. That is already apparent in many of the forms now available, but I should point out that it will not always mean that they are shorter. One of the misapprehensions is that shortness makes for clarity. It does not. We design our forms so that they can be gone through logically and easily filled in, so we are aiming for simplicity as well as a reduction in numbers.

Mr. Rooker: What action is the Minister taking to ensure that paperwork is readable? Conservative Members do not hold as many surgeries as my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] Does the Minister appreciate that the legibility of some of the forms, especially the carbonless paper forms, causes massive problems for constituents and makes it more difficult for us and others to advise them because we cannot read the information entered on the forms? Something must be done to improve that part of the operation.

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman held as many surgeries as he implies, he would know that many of the forms are much better and clearer. Part of the exercise in which we are engaged is designed to ensure that all the information is immediately available and simple to follow, so that even the hon. Gentleman will be able to understand the forms.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how much cash has been invested in the computerisation programme?

Mr. Lloyd: Since the scheme was first developed in 1982, about £1·2 billion has been invested.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Minister recall that reducing paperwork and simplifying the system were among the reasons given for savaging benefits, not least for disabled people on 11 April? Now that we have the

authoritative evidence of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys about mass deprivation among disabled people, will any or all of those cuts be reversed?

Mr. Lloyd: Overall, there were no cuts in April. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, spending this year on social security is higher than it was last year. The changes that have been made have directed money to those most in need. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that the largest changes were in income support, where there is a special premium for the disabled. The other disablement benefits will be examined thoroughly again when we have all the OPCS reports. Therefore, the area in which the right hon. Gentleman is interested benefited in April this year and there is more to come.

Mr. Jack: In the review of paperwork, will my hon. Friend ensure that he maintains on paper a supply of the excellent information to citizens advice bureaux, Age Concern and other organisations which give information to the public about our benefits?

Mr. Lloyd: We are anxious that all outside organisations, in addition to those mentioned by my hon. Friend, have a full knowledge of the services offered by the Department.

Housing Benefit

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people have been excluded from housing benefits as a result of the recent changes in the social security system.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Housing benefit continues to be available to all young people assessed as needing help with their rent and rates.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that there are 30,000 youngsters living in cardboard boxes and anywhere else they can find shelter because of the Government's draconian cuts in social security? Do the Government listen to people such as the royal family who are appalled and shocked—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said earlier on that we do not introduce into the debate members of the royal family to support our arguments.

Mr. Wray: Are the Government not listening to many eminent people in our society who are shocked and appalled at the Government's draconian cuts that have left kids vulnerable and without dignity?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe the figure of 30,000 young people, none of whom are excluded from housing benefit, which is available to any person—and young person—whose income is below the qualifying amount and who does not have capital of £8,000. In addition, they are guaranteed a place on a YTS scheme. Rather than continuing to talk of those who have nowhere to live or no income, the hon. Gentleman should draw their attention to the fact that there is a ready scheme that provides income, and a social security system that enables housing benefit to be paid to them.

Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reassuring reply. Does he agree that a number of voluntary organisations and others are deeply concerned about the short-term future of a number of hostels, especially those


for young people leaving residential care? Will he assure us that they are mistaken in believing that changes in the social security system are responsible for that anxiety or ensure that none of the hostels are closed before the report of the targeting review appears?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that my hon. Friend may be referring to the proposed changes in hostel board and lodging. We are examining the replies that have been given and will introduce a fair system for hostels. We recognise the value of their work and intend to ensure that they continue to do that work.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Cathedrals

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the numbers and main responsibilities of (a) clergy and (b) other staff in the cathedrals where the Church Commissioners have some responsibility for payments; how many cathedrals are involved; and if he will make a statement.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners (Mr. Michael Alison): For each cathedral, except Oxford and Sodor and Man, the commissioners pay the stipend of the dean or provost and of two residentiary canons. This amounts to a total of 123 clergy in 41 cathedrals. The commissioners also make block grants to these 41 cathedrals towards the pay of other clergy and lay employees. They have no information about the total number of employees who benefit. The responsibilities of cathedral staff are determined by the chapter in accordance with cathedral statutes.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that hundreds of thousands of people are flocking into cathedrals, which offer a big mission opportunity to the Church? Will they not be completely mystified and will not their concept of the Deity be annihilated if present anti-sexist language proposed for the Prayer Book and God is allowed through Synod and Parliament?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend's question arises in the context of cathedrals. I am glad to be able to give him a neutral response—a cathedral is neither a he nor a she but an it. I reassure my hon. Friend that many years will have to elapse before cathedral liturgies are bowdlerised to get rid of any reference to the male gender.

Ecclesiastical Courts (Legal Aid)

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the provision of legal aid in the ecclesiastical courts.

Mr. Alison: A legal aid fund was established under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 to assist with costs that a complainant or accused person might incur in connection with proceedings relating to an offence under that Measure. Legal aid may also be given in respect of proceedings arising out of loss of office.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of some proposals that have been made by St. John's church,

Boscombe, which is in my constituency? Objectors have been informed by the diocese that they may be liable for ecclesiastical court costs if they exercise their right to object. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, without legal aid, those of my constituents who cannot afford such a risk are effectively being denied the right to object, and will he raise this matter of principle with the commissioners?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend can be relaxed about this on behalf of his constituents. He is referring to a case that may arise under a so-called faculty application in the consistory court. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the chancellor of the consistory court will not usually order the objector to pay the costs, unless he considers the objection to be unreasonable or vexatious. Applications for a faculty may be made without individuals having to incur the cost of employing legal representation.

Cathedrals (Admission Charges)

Mr. Chapman: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the commissioners' policy on charging tourists who visit the Church of England cathedrals.

Mr. Alison: This is a matter not for the commissioners but for cathedrals.

Mr. Chapman: Given that millions of people visit some of our cathedrals and hundreds of thousands visit most other cathedrals each year, could the Church Commissioners, with their responsibility for such matters, at least positively encourage charging the public to visit cathedrals, and thereby recognise the escalating costs of wear and tear? Should there not be admission charges on Mondays to Saturdays at least, with free access to certain parts of cathedrals for those who truly wish to worship on their own?

Mr. Alison: I note my hon. Friend's point. I am grateful for the obvious concern that he has expressed about the income and costs of maintenance of cathedrals. Some cathedrals charge an entrance fee, but, alas, the additional income cannot be relied on as a regular source, because of the obvious peaks and troughs in the tourist season. Some cathedrals prefer not even to charge mid-week visitors, as some may wish to worship. Therefore, it would be wrong to try to impose any central pattern of admission charges.

Mr. Frank Field: Are not charges preferable to selling cathedral treasures?

Mr. Alison: The scale of charges to avoid selling things like Mappa Mundi would be so gigantic as to make it questionable whether the cathedrals would in any sense be able to meet the scale of costs involved, in Hereford, for example, where the sum of £7 million is quoted as the minimum required for the refurbishment and maintenance of the fabric.

Mr. Rowe: Has the time not come for the care of the fabric of these great buildings to fall on the Government? Many Christians in this country find a clear distinction between the business of having to concentrate vast resources, and clerics' and laymen's time, on trying to preserve buildings, and seeking the cure of souls.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend knows that, through various subordinate and intermediate agencies such as English Heritage and other bodies, the Government contribute a considerable sum of money to the maintenance of parish churches, many of which have extreme historical value. It has hitherto been thought that the glamour, scale and photogenic qualities of our cathedrals have been sources for generating their own flow of income. I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I have absolutely no means of committing the Government to any contributions to cathedrals.

Mr. Cryer: Does the right hon. Member endorse the policy of those cathedrals that do not charge? Will he consider providing more support from the Government? Does he agree that such buildings should be supported collectively, rather than face the possibility of being privatised, selling tourist services to the highest bidder, and maximising revenue through several slick, nasty public relations and commercial promotions, which would destroy the nature of cathedrals?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman referred to cathedrals being privatised. I am glad to say that they have not hitherto been in the public domain. It is a matter of publicising them, rather than privatising them—publicising them with a view to getting as much care and concern as they need to mobilise general national support from all people of good will to help them with their ongoing costs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, given that we have 42 splendid cathedrals, the level at which they are maintained, their beauty and viability remain a testimony to the considerable resources they and private institutions have been able to raise over past centuries.

St. Jude's Church, Southsea

Mr. David Martin: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church Commissioners will take steps to prevent the demolition of St. Jude's church, Southsea.

Mr. Alison: The commissioners have not received proposals from the diocese involving St. Jude's church, although I understand that its future is under consideration by the diocese. I am arranging to provide my hon. Friend with an explanatory leaflet about the procedure that would apply were proposals to be submitted to the commissioners. He will note from it that, should such proposals be received, he may make representations to the commissioners.

Mr. Martin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he convey to the commissioners the great strength of feeling among many of my constituents about the demolition of this church, which has been proposed by the parochial council, and that it will be opposed as strongly as possible by those constituents who wish to see such an important church retain its parish function?

Mr. Alison: Yes, I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend's comments and I shall see that the commissioners are made aware of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

Disabled People (Parking Spaces)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the operation of disabled parking spaces within the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): No, Sir. The operation of disabled parking spaces in Star Chamber Court was reviewed by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in January this year when it was confirmed that 12 parking spaces should be reserved for disabled drivers and the remaining five spaces should be available for use by right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the parking spaces for the disabled appear to have been abused by able-bodied Members of the House? Is that not a bad example to set to private car parks which, I understand, suffer from similar abuse?

Mr. Wakeham: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that it sets a bad example. I understand that those spaces are checked at regular intervals by the authorities of the House and that those who have parked there without authority are reminded either personally or in writing not to use the spaces reserved for the disabled.

Mr. Wigley: Can the Lord President give us an assurance that, when the new buildings are complete, not only parking spaces but the need for disabled people to have access to the buildings used by Members of Parliament for meeting delegations, and associated matters, will be kept in mind and that there will be full provision?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that those matters will be kept in mind. I shall take the opportunity raised by the hon. Gentleman's question to remind the Sub-Committee of the Services Committee to bear those points specifically in mind.

"A Patient Voice at the GMC"

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has received from the General Medical Council a copy of its response to the report entitled, "A Patient Voice at the GMC", by one of its members, Mrs. Jean Robinson.

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Spearing: Can the Lord President put the reply into the Library? Does he not agree that major charges were made in Mrs. Robinson's report, to which the GMC should respond, especially as a major duty laid on it by the House is the protection of the public? No doubt the Government will wish to proceed by agreement, but does the Lord President agree that it is time for the GMC to come up with its own proposals to restore public confidence in its procedures, so that it can deal effectively with those few members of the profession who let down the profession and the public?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether I am entitled to put a copy of that document in the Library, but I shall


check on that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the GMC set up a working party in May 1987 to review the procedures relating to alleged neglect or disregard of professional responsibilities. Mrs. Robinson is a member of that working party and will, no doubt, ensure that her views are well understood by members of the working party.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend recall the tragic death of Harriet English, the daughter of my agent and constituent? I have twice raised in the House the matter of those tragic circumstances. Do not the facts of this case, as of a number of others, show that there is an urgent need for the reform of the GMC's procedures?

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly know about the tragic case to which my hon. Friend refers and I know the parents well. Indeed, it is a tragic case. Of course, the GMC has produced new rules, which are now before the Privy Council. It is considering the matters raised by Mrs. Robinson's report—and other matters. Whether it comes forward with further new rules is a question for it in the first instance. rather than me.

Select Committee on Scottish Affairs

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Lord President of the Council what estimate he has of savings resulting from the failure to nominate a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs during the parliamentary Session, 1987–88.

Mr. Wakeham: No precise estimate of the savings is possible, but the expenses borne by the House of Commons Administration vote for the Scottish Affairs Committee 1986–87 were £22,774. In addition, the gross costs of printing and publishing the proceedings of the Committee were £44,985.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Lord President of the Council accept that that is a very small sum to pay for the scrutiny of a major Government Department? If the problems in setting up the Committee relate to the political dynamism of Scotland rather than to a cost-paring exercise, would it not be appropriate for the Government to recognise the political aspirations of the people of Scotland, shown recently both in the Govan by-election result and in opinion polls which suggest that the alternative is to establish a Scottish Government with communications to the European Community?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Lady anticipates to some degree the debate that we are to have tomorrow. I assure her that cost is not the reason why it has not been possible to set up the Committee; there are other reasons, which will be revealed in the debate tomorrow.

Mr. Gow: Would it assist my right hon. Friend in setting up the Select Committee if he knew that my hon. Friends the Members for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames)—and even the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)—would all be prepared to serve on it?

Mr. Wakeham: No doubt my hon. Friend's contribution will be valuable tomorrow night, but I do not think that it will help me to answer the question today.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are surprised that there have been reductions

in expenditure on any aspect of Scottish affairs in recent years? Might not these savings therefore be regarded as a desirable precedent?

Mr. Wakeham: The level of public expenditure per capita in Scotland is substantially above that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Hon. Members (Salaries and Allowances)

Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received regarding hon. Members' salaries and allowances.

Mr. Wakeham: I have received a number of such representations.

Mr. Allen: Now that Members' salaries are certainly adequate, will the Lord President of the Council advise those of us who wish to perform our duties effectively both here and at home how we can get adequate allowances to provide us with sufficient staff both here and in our constituencies?

Mr. Wakeham: It is quite clear from our recent debate on procedure that the hon. Gentleman has a special view of the role of Parliament, which I do not think is shared by any other right hon. or hon. Member. Anyway, I hope that he has a nice trip to America.

Sir John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the years we have debated our salaries, those of assistants, secretaries and office costs ad nauseam? Some time ago we settled on a proper basis how the matter should be dealt with, and there is therefore no reason to raise it again.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is quite right, but I do not think that his advice will necessarily be accepted by all hon. Members. Salaries have been raised regularly and have now been placed on a more satisfactory basis and hon. Members must agree that the office costs allowance has been raised by a considerable amount in recent years.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that the Prime Minister and all her offices now cost the taxpayer more than the entire Civil List? Does he think that that represents value for money?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend will know that I, too, represent the city of Nottingham. Will he take it from me that the citizens of Nottingham will think that it comes ill from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who has campaigned against the policies of the Government, to seek a higher salary and more financial help for the work that he does not do in the city of Nottingham?

Mr. Wakeham: I have enough difficulties in answering questions about Leicester in the House without getting involved in Nottingham. I can only say that my hon. Friend represents his constituents extremely well.

Mr. Marlow: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the last thing we should do is to set up a system of allowances so that the Opposition can set up a vipers' nest of cadet apparatchiks in every Labour constituency in the country?

Mr. Wakeham: The present system has been discussed and approved in this House. The allowances are for the work of Members of Parliament, not for electioneering purposes.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) made an unpleasant and personal attack on me. It was

imputed that I had asked for more salary for myself rather than put a question about the level of provision of service for Members of Parliament. Could that allegation be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The record will show exactly what the hon. Gentleman said.

Egg Industry

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about measures to assist the egg industry.
As I explained to the House on Friday, the Department of Health drew attention this summer to a new and growing problem from salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 linked to eggs, and since August the chief medical officer has been issuing advice to the public. As a result of the Department of Health's information, Agriculture Departments acted immediately with them and the industry to tackle the problem at every point in the production chain. This led, among other initiatives, to the publication of codes of practice to apply to commercial and breeding flocks.
The uncertainty over the implications of salmonella enteritidis has recently caused a sharp decline in egg sales. The Government have decided, in these wholly exceptional circumstances, to introduce the following two short-term measures.
The first measure will provide a payment to egg packers for the destruction of surplus eggs for a period of four weeks from 21 December. The payment will be at the rate of 30p per dozen eggs on up to 1·1 million cases. This will tackle the overhang of eggs in the system.
A second measure will be introduced to help the industry to reduce the size of the egg laying flock. This will provide for a payment for a bird in the age range 18 to 30 weeks. The scheme will enable up to 4 million hens—roughly equivalent to 10 per cent. of the laying flock—to be culled under the supervision of the Agriculture Departments.
Taken together, these two short-term measures are designed to assist the egg industry to adjust to the market situation now confronting it. The estimated cost of these two schemes is at maximum £17 million in payments to the industry. There will also he payments which are estimated at £2 million to contractors and local authorities.
I have been in contact with the European Commission to inform it of the actions we are taking.
Parliamentary approval for these new measures will be sought in Supplementary Supply Estimates for the agricultural support Votes of the Agriculture Departments and authority for the payments will rest upon the Estimates and the Appropriation Act. Pending that approval, expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund. Similar arrangements will be made for expenditure in Northern Ireland. These costs will be found from the reserve, so that there will be no addition to the planned total of public expenditure.
The Government have been formulating detailed plans for tackling this problem since the new information became available. The two codes of practice were only the start. As I made clear to the House on 1 December and again on Friday, we have been preparing a number of other steps. These will include more stringent bacteriological monitoring of animal protein for animal feed, the registration of breeding flocks and hatcheries for hygiene control purposes, and strengthening the controls relating to imported animal protein.
I hope that the actions I have announced today, taken with the advertising campaign setting out the advice of the

chief medical officer and presenting the facts to consumers, will help quickly to restore order to the egg market in the interests of consumers and everyone working in that important sector of the food industry.

Dr. David Clark: Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), it was only a matter of time before the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had to come to the House with proposals to spend taxpayers' money in an effort to bail out the troubled egg and poultry producers. Since the hon. Lady's gaffe two weeks ago, egg sales have fallen by half and over 15 million eggs each and every day cannot be sold. The future is even bleaker.
The Minister is facing a twofold problem. First, he must find a way of keeping the egg producers in business. Secondly, and more fundamentally, he must find a way of tackling the problem of salmonella in the egg and poultry industry, because, as The Lancet reported only this month, there is a salmonella epidemic in this country. Therefore, we are disappointed with the Minister's statement because he has yet again displayed the complacency that has throughout characterised the Government's attitude to the problem. He has manifestly failed to deal with the main problem of the extent of salmonella in eggs and poultry, which is the key to restoring public confidence in the safety of eating eggs and thus the long-term future of the industry for which we all wish to strive.
Whatever the facts, the public believe that there was an element of truth in the former Under-Secretary of State's comments, but the key question is how large is the threat of salmonella. By his support for his former junior Minister, the Secretary of State for Health has clearly a different perspective from that of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. While they pursue their departmental rivalry, the British people are left unaware of and completely confused about the extent of the problem.
Will the Minister set aside the petty bickering and, with his Cabinet colleagues, set up a small group of experts to advise us on the extent of salmonella? Only then can we work out what action is needed to tackle it. Will the Minister, too, reverse the cuts in the agricultural and food research budget, which has ironically resulted in the team working on salmonella in poultry being given their redundancy notices only last month? While the Government are pursuing such stupid and vindictive actions, how can we and the poultry industry have confidence in them?
In his statement, the Minister made great play of his initiatives on the monitoring and hygiene of the breeding flock, and, of course, the voluntary code. We believe that if it is necessary for the code to be voluntary then it ought to be statutory when it concerns public health.
Furthermore, will the Minister confirm the allegation made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) that the Conservative Government watered down the regulations for hygiene standards in poultry feed early in the1980s? Will the Minister explain what he envisages happening to the eggs after the four-week period? What provisions is he making for the producers who may be caught out before 21 December? Is he confident that the culling of 10 per cent. of the flock will be sufficient? Does he intend paying any compensation to the workers who have been made redundant because of that?
The Minister claims that he has worked long and hard on this measure—I am sure that he has—but he has funked


the main issue. He has failed to make any attempt to evaluate the true measure of salmonella in eggs and poultry and, until he does that, the general public will naturally remain concerned about their health, and I am afraid that public confidence will not be restored.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has asked many questions. I shall endeavour to answer them all briefly, for obvious reasons.
First, on the question of the two schemes, obviously I regret having to do this. I would much have preferred not to have had to do it, but, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, the plain fact is that we face a difficult situation in the market place. I hope that he will agree that it is right in the interests of the industry and of the consumer that it should be dealt with straight away.
I make it clear that these are my final proposals. It is not intended that there should be any further financial sums available beyond those which I have announced. The hon. Gentleman said that the future was even bleaker. I hope that he will agree that taking action, on the one hand, to put the facts before the consumer and, on the other, dealing with the industry problem is the best way of ensuring that the future is not bleak.
The hon. Gentleman is a fair person in these matters, so I am sure that he will realise the extreme difficulty of dealing with salmonella overall and eradicating it. There are many hundreds of different types of salmonella. We are faced with a new strain that has arisen not only in this country but in others. We are having to learn as much as we can about it and to find ways of dealing with it.
It is absolutely fair to say that no country has mastered the problems of salmonella in animals and poultry because it is a highly complex disease that involves a great number of factors at all stages of the chain. One such factor is the bacteria, which can come from the environment or wild birds and which is difficult to eradicate.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency on my part and we are looking at every possible way in which to deal with the problem. It would be misleading to say that the disease can be eradicated, but we are endeavouring to find the measures to minimise the risk at every stage of the production chain.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the best contributions that can be made to consumers and industry alike, which is in their interests—at the end of his remarks the hon. Gentleman referred to the workers in the industry and I have as much concern about them as he has, which is why I have taken such steps today—is for the full facts to be put before the public. There is a very low degree of risk, particularly if members of the public—housewives in the kitchen—follow proper hygiene practices. It is extremely important that that message gets through to the public.
It is not the fact, as I have repeated on many occasions in the House—not just on Friday—that most eggs are infected with salmonella.

Mr. Ron Davies: How does the Minister know?

Mr. MacGregor: From the sampling that we have done. The incidence of salmonella in the breeding flocks of laying chicks is extremely low. All our evidence suggests that the incidence of the disease in laying flocks is extremely small.

If consumers follow the advice of the chief medical officer—he is as anxious as I am to get that message across in its entirety—the risks are very, very small.
In 1987 there were 20,000 reported cases of food poisoning. There are approximately 50 reported cases of outbreaks of salmonella associated with eggs. I say outbreaks because they involved more than one person; they involved 1,000 people. Those figures set this matter in context. There are always problems about food poisoning, and we must do everything we can in the production chain and in the home to reduce the risk.
I am anxious to put all the facts before the public. Clearly there is a limit to what one can put in an advertisement, but I am seeking ways to put all the facts before the public.
The hon. Gentleman referred to disputes between the Ministry and the Department of Health. Let me refer him to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health said on 5 December:
There has been the closest co-operation between my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Government's chief medical officer. We all agree on our statements and on our message to the public. Whenever there are minor public health worries, it is inevitable that people will exaggerate … I hope that the House will get the matter in proportion and will accept that there is a health problem, which we are tackling, and that the average member of the public is not at risk."—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 23.]
We have been working together on this matter.
I apologise for the length of my reply, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to answer all the questions. We are spending about £1 million a year on salmonella research and development. Since the new information became available to us, a working party has been considering all the research into salmonella. I hope to have its report shortly, then I can consider what further steps to take on R and D.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of a statutory code of practice as opposed to a voluntary code of practice. One can get a voluntary code of practice into operation much more quickly. We have had extensive discussions with the industry and it is clearly in its interests to have a voluntary code. However, I have not ruled out transferring the appropriate elements of the voluntary code on to a statutory footing. I have been considering that for some time.
I believe that my reply has covered most of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I must repeat that the best contribution that everyone can make, including the workers in the industry, is to give the public the clear message that only an extremely small proportion of eggs is affected. If they follow the chief medical officer's advice, the risk to the public should be very small indeed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private Members' day and private Members' motions follow this—

Mr. Tony Banks: And another statement.

Mr. Speaker: I was about to say that. The Minister has made a very detailed statement. There is also to be a related debate in the name of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) later this evening or possibly early tomorrow morning. I shall allow questions on this


statement to go on until 4.15 pm. I ask hon. Members not to repeat questions that have been asked. We have already heard long statements from the Front Benches.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he and his officials deserve congratulations on coming to the House so soon with this comprehensive scheme?
First, may we assume that egg producers who have already culled their hens will be covered by the scheme? Secondly, and more importantly, will my right hon. Friend look at the scheme again with a view to extending it if, at the end of four weeks and after the culling of 10 per cent. of the flock, the situation continues to be bad?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will appreciate that a scheme of this sort usually takes months to complete correctly, and we have had to do it in a few days. Inevitably, there must be an element of rough justice if we are to get it into operation quickly.
As to whether egg producers who have already been affected will be covered, the thrust of the scheme, both on the egg and the laying hen side, is to deal with the present market and to get back to a more stable basis to enable the market to adjust to present demand. So we cannot get the payments through to every producer. By dealing with the problem, we shall, I hope, restore to the market as much stability as possible, which will mean that all egg producers, including those who have already been affected, will benefit. In that indirect sense, they are covered.
I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance that I shall re-examine the situation after four weeks. I have said that we are faced with an exceptional circumstance in the market, and this scheme is designed in its totality to deal with that.

Mr. David Steel: I am sure I am not the only hon. Member who is bemused at the sight of the Minister tackling the overhang of eggs.
Further to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), will the Minister clarify an important point? Is it right that no one who has culled birds until now and no one who has taken eggs off the farm at rock bottom prices until now will benefit from the compensation? Is it only a future scheme?
As a matter of long-term policy, since we cannot open a newspaper nowadays without reading about some food or other that is dangerous to eat, will the Ministry, in the context of lower food production in Europe, encourage a return to more natural and less artificial means of production, especially in feedstuffs?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, what I meant by "overhang" is fairly clear. I meant that there is a significant surplus of eggs on the market which affects all egg producers at present—and all those with flocks. That is the problem that I am addressing. Payments will not be made to producers who have already culled flocks. One cannot do that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not think it would be right to do that. We have moved with great speed. But all producers who have had to take action already and who are in a difficult position will benefit from these measures indirectly, and much more than if we had not taken them.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about food. A good deal more of my Department's resources is now devoted to ensuring food safety and to dealing with

all these aspects. However, the right hon. Gentleman's reference to more natural feeds needs to be taken in context. With regard to salmonella, free-range eggs are no different from battery hen eggs.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend calm fears outside the House that, because so many hens have already been slaughtered and hen producers have gone out of business, there may in future be a severe shortage of eggs, with the result that the price will increase considerably? I assure my right hon. Friend that no self-respecting housewife can do her job without a good supply of eggs in the kitchen.

Mr. MacGregor: I could riot agree more with my hon. Friend's closing remarks. I hope that housewives will continue to buy eggs exactly as they have in the past, taking note of the chief medical officer's advice and using normal hygiene practices in the kitchen. That is the best way to ensure that the industry remains viable, as all of us would wish it to be.
On existing producers, the plain fact is that we have acted as quickly as possible. A scheme like this has never been introduced as quickly before. The scheme is the best way of helping existing producers.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Has the Minister seen reports that some egg producers are keeping hens at low temperatures in the dark for most of the day? Will he confirm that that is in breach of his Department's welfare codes for battery hens? Will he urgently remind producers of that and of the fact that if they disregard the codes they are open to prosecution?

Mr. MacGregor: All producers should abide by the welfare codes.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this problem was caused by misinformation and by the incompetence of a Minister? Does he accept that those who have suffered should be fully compensated and that his statement is totally unsatisfactory?

Mr. MacGregor: I have come forward very promptly with measures to assist the egg industry, and I have done everything that I can to get over the facts about eggs and to reassure the public about all the measures that we have taken and the measures that they should take.

Mr. Jack Ashley: In view of the Minister's clear admission that there were more than 1,000 cases of salmonella food poisoning associated with eggs in the first 10 months of this year, and in view of his Department's admission that in 1987 no less than 28 per cent. of imported animal protein was affected by salmonella, will the Minister tell us on what date he first warned Parliament and the country about the dangers of salmonella?

Mr. MacGregor: The chief medical officer issued the advice on 26 August, and since then I have been taking steps to deal with the problem. It is important to keep these matters in context. There have always been cases of food poisoning caused by salmonella. It exists in most other countries, too, and we have tried to do all that we can to reduce it. The number of cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred should be contrasted with the fact that the British people have been consuming 30


million eggs a day. The vast majority of people, taking the normal precautions that everyone takes, have been eating eggs perfectly safely.
I accept that we must tighten the rules on importing food protein, and that is what I am doing. But, subject to checking, I believe that none of that protein contained the salmonella enteritidis strain that has caused the present difficulty.

Sir Richard Body: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), does my right hon. Friend accept that I have made no allegation? Does he agree that egg producers are worried by two external hygiene factors over which they have no control? First, they are concerned about what the feed manufacturers do. So long as some of the manufacturers put into their compounds bits and pieces of dead animals, surely they should contribute to the £17 million that the taxpayer will have to pay.
Secondly, many egg producers are concerned about what is now going on in hatcheries and whether drugs such as tylosin, which are extensively used to suppress salmonella and other diseases, are continuing to work. Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter urgently?

Mr. MacGregor: We have been urgently considering these matters. Protein processing plants must abide by the conditions of the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981. We have increased the amount of inspection and monitoring and such plants are now being inspected by my officials on a regular three-monthly basis, in addition to any monitoring that they do themselves. Where salmonella contamination is found in any of the plants' production, a notice is served on the plant, requiring it to ensure that all the product conforms with the required bacteriological standard, which means no salmonella within a specific time, after which a reinspection visit takes place. I am seeking to tighten those measures.
However, one of the problems to which I referred earlier is that salmonella strains can enter through the environment, for example, through wild birds. They are sometimes difficult to eradicate in plants and lorries, so there is always the problem of reinfection which no country has yet been able to find a way of overcoming. I am anxious that we should do everything possible in that connection, and I have discussed the matter with Ministers in other countries. My vets are in regular contact with scientists in other countries, but the problem remains.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister tell us what the destruction of eggs means? Can he guarantee that none of the affected eggs will be recycled? Is he aware that it costs producers about £90 to produce a certificate saying that their eggs are salmonella-free? What assistance will he give to producers for such certification, what help will he give to retailers who have been badly hit by these problems, and will he introduce a programme of salmonella eradication for the poultry industry in general?
Finally, as the Minister is responsible for fisheries, is he aware of the massive destruction of the fishing industry by quota cuts? Will he introduce a similar rescue package for fisheries?

Mr. MacGregor: Destruction means that the eggs will be destroyed or incinerated mainly in local authority plants. They will not be recycled. This measure is directed at the immediate needs and, therefore, is the right one.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Minister considered carefully the calamitous position of the egg industry in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that, whatever may be said of the industry in the rest of the United Kingdom, it has a clean bill of health in Northern Ireland? Has he considered the fact that, when this country joined the EEC, the egg industry in Northern Ireland had a laying flock of 10 million? It is now 3·3 million and is down to rock bottom. Does he realise that 1,000 jobs in the industry and 2,500 jobs that spin off from the industry are at stake in Northern Ireland? May I insist today on compensation for those who have already culled their flocks and stress that they will be exasperated by not receiving it?

Mr. MacGregor: The measures that we have taken are the most practical; they are right. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman's comment about salmonella enteritidis in Northern Ireland is correct. The measures that I have taken today are designed to assist the industry in the current market situation in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: The Minister must be aware that he has shown scant concern for the 1,000 people or more who have been certified as suffering from salmonellosis as a result of the ingestion of eggs and for the many who died as a result of the disease. Is he now prepared to accept the departmental responsibility for the shameful cover-up that has occurred in this country for years over the extent of salmonellosis in poultry flocks? If not, is he prepared to do the honourable thing and resign, like the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)?

Mr. MacGregor: There has been no cover-up. We have been absolutely clear about this matter, and I have taken the action that I believe is now required. There has been no complacency.
The hon. Gentleman's question about deaths raises a very complex matter. None of the 26 deaths recorded in the public health laboratory service figures can be directly attributed to eggs or poultry. However, the balance of probability is that a proportion will be. It is not clear that only egg infection has resulted in a death. The matter is very complex and it is difficult to get figures. However, the deaths are not on the scale, by a long way, that some people have suggested.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is creating an expensive precedent because consumers may decide, on grounds of hygiene or safety, not to buy many products? With regard to restoring confidence, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will believe that a voluntary code of practice, given the industry's history, is not satisfactory? There should be a statutory code of practice.

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly I considered my right hon. Friend's first point very carefully. Knowing my interest in achieving value for money, I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises that I considered it very carefully. I


concluded that, in the exceptional circumstances facing the industry now, it was right to take these measures. The measures are limited absolutely to the exceptional circumstances and to the state of the market partly to ensure that they are not regarded as a precedent.
It was necessary to produce a new code of practice for the industry to deal with the kind of situation that we could see resulting from salmonella enteritidis about which we have held urgent talks with the industry. The matters are complex, and we decided that it was important to get the code of practice out quickly. That was arranged, and the first code of practice came out on 5 December. That does not rule out a statutory code. It was important to get the arrangements in place quickly. It is clearly in the industry's interests to follow the arrangements, and it has assured us that it will. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should consider urgently, as we are doing at the moment, which parts of the code could be made statutory.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I recognise the plight of egg producers and the Government's deplorable record on research in food hygiene, but will the Minister clear up the confusion that has arisen from the Government's advertisement? Is he aware that thousands of housewives have already made their Christmas cakes and many of them will have used marzipan and icing containing raw eggs? Is he also prepared to reassure the House about these matters because commercial food producers do not appear to be mentioned and appear not to use raw eggs in the manufacture of marzipan and royal icing? Is there not confusion which would justify yet another expensive advertisement in the national press?

Mr. MacGregor: Commercial producers of those substances and of things like mayonnaise use pasteurised eggs, which are safe. They are obliged to use such eggs to ensure that their products are safe and are not included in the warning about raw eggs. Housewives should be careful about using raw eggs in the home.

Mr. Paul Marland: I give a warm welcome to the measures announced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend, and I assure him that his statement will be seen by egg producers as a meaningful gesture to sort out an awful situation which was not of their making. Does he agree that it is very much in the consumers' interests that the measures should be taken, because without them there is no doubt that the supply of eggs would end and the price of eggs would probably go through the ceiling?
Did my right hon. Friend read the front page article in this week's Mail on Sunday which said that 573 eggs had been purchased in 106 different outlets but none was found to contain salmonella? Does he agree that it is probably true to say that more poisoning takes place in the home than in the food chain?

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that my hon. Friend concentrated on the consumers' interest, because that has been uppermost in our minds. It ought to be borne in mind that the industry has no interest in not carrying through all the advice, recommendations and our statutory conditions because very few products depend more on return sales than eggs. It is therefore essential that we minimise all the risks from eggs. Today's measures have been taken very much in the consumers' interests.
In reply to the previous question I said that housewives should be careful about using raw eggs. Of course they should not use raw eggs in uncooked food. I want to make that correction. We have said that throughout, and I want to make that absolutely clear.

Ms. Clare Short: I do not believe that the Minister's statement today will solve the egg industry's problem. The Government are telling us not to eat soft-boiled eggs and not to give them to babies or frail people. That means that there is something deeply wrong. Today the Minister has given some money to egg producers, but he has not made it conditional for them to clean up their act.
I do not believe that the decline in egg sales has anything to do with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). People know now that there is deep infection in the egg industry. They will not buy eggs in the numbers that they used to until we are assured that the industry has been cleaned up. Has the Minister seen the front page of The Guardian today which contains an article in which Professor Richard Lacey, of Leeds university, says that one person a week may be dying and 3,000 people a week may be affected by eggs? The Minister speaks too much for the farmer. Most of the people in this country are consumers, and they are not satisfied.

Mr. MacGregor: I absolutely reject the charge that I speak only for the farmer. I have paid every bit as much attention to the consumer. I see the interests of the farmer and the consumer as being identical because the one very much depends on the other. I reject that charge absolutely.
With regard to egg infection, I plead with the hon. Lady and all Opposition Member; who have referred to the workers in the industry to get this into perspective. There are problems of food poisoning in most foods if people do not take the proper precautions. There have always been problems in many other areas of human activity. The risk in relation to eggs is very small indeed and it can be made very much smaller—minuscule—if the appropriate steps are taken according to the chief medical officer's advice.
Although it is not a matter directly for me, I have not seen figures to confirm what the hon. Lady has said. I have given the figures from the public health laboratory service. They are the official Government figures available to me. It is important that people return to a proper sense of perspective and balance. As with all other food, that involves taking the proper steps in the kitchen, and the chief medical officer's advice has been directed to that.

Mr. Derek Conway: The speed of my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon will be greatly welcomed in Shropshire where business men, as well as egg producers. are at risk. Many vital jobs that they provide in rural areas are threatened. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House about the exports of British produce and the safeguards to prevent unfair continental competition exacerbating a problem which it ill-behoves hon. Members to blow out of proportion?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that his statement is no help to small egg producers who have already had to cull perhaps half or more of their flocks? How on earth can they benefit from today's announcement? Why is it not possible for the Minister to


backdate for two weeks compensation or payments available for culling to help those people? Has he taken advice from the Law Officers about the liability of the Government or individual Ministers to compensation payments through the courts for people who have undoubtedly suffered and who will receive nothing from today's announcement?

Mr. MacGregor: I make it clear, as I did on Friday, that the arrangements imply no acceptance of legal liability on the Government's part. I have naturally been concerned about the position of small producers, but one must consider the practical problems of bringing help quickly. There are 35,000 producers and 3,100 egg packers, and that is why it is practical and sensible to concentrate payments on egg packers. In the time available, I tried to think matters through as much as was humanly possible. Both measures combined are directed at the real problems, which are the surplus of eggs in the market and the risk of continuing surplus if the flock remains at its present size—which is the reason for the second measure. Both are designed to bring stability back to the market, which is the best way of helping the small producer as quickly as possible.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the monitoring of imported eggs, where it appears from his remarks the risks are equivalent but the new safeguards and codes of practice cannot apply?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to consider that matter. I know that there are measures. I shall write to my hon. Friend about them.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Minister realise that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, not that most eggs are infected, but that most egg production is infected? Was she right or wrong?
As the Minister managed to find £17 million to give to egg producers, why was he unable to find any money for the fishing industry, which is affected by the same Department and which will lose out? The Government side of the House is infected with farmers; there is not a fisherman among them.

Mr. MacGregor: That simply is not the case. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, from the evidence available to me, it is not the case that most egg production is infected. What is clear from all the evidence that we have been able to gather—and this is the important point from the consumer's point of view and therefore the one that I stressed—is that most eggs are not infected. That is the risk that concerns the general public, and that is why I have been saying throughout, to reassure the general public, that it is not the case. I thought that the whole House would wish me to give such an assurance in order to assist the industry and to reassure the general public about eggs. That is what the advertisement is designed to do.
The hon. Gentleman knows that we fought extremely hard, and very successfully, to get the best possible deal for the fishing industry this year. As a result of the whole package, the white fish industry's quotas are down by about 10 per cent. on the total catch that it was allowed for the same white fish this year. We do not know what market prices will be next year, but they may rise.

Mr. Speaker: I ask right hon. and hon. Members to restrict their questions to eggs, and not to deal with fish.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his swift and excellent rescue package both for egg and poultry producers and for the consumer alike. However, in the interests of accuracy, both in the House and in advertising, will my right hon. Friend encourage the chief medical officer to come to me for a cookery lesson—in public, not in private? Clearly, he does not know that pasteurisation of egg yolks, which occurs in three seconds at a temperature of 92 deg. C, destroys all salmonella without destroying the eggs' emulsifying properties—thus enabling one to make home-made mayonnaise, ice cream and mousses, and to use bought marzipan, without risk to babies, old people, and the healthy and unhealthy alike? Is that not a point worth knowing?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her culinary knowledge is superb, and her point about pasteurised liquid eggs is absolutely right. Her remarks illustrate the difficulty of getting over the whole message, when only small parts of it are extracted for headline treatment. It has been difficult to get over the message about pasteurised eggs. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, because she has made the position absolutely clear in respect of mayonnaise, marzipan and everything else bought in the shops.

Ms. Joan Walley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why his statement dealt only with assisting the egg industry and made no reference to safeguarding public health? Will he say how many prosecutions his Department is bringing where salmonella has been found to exist? Will he reinstate the Bristol research that he stopped? What advice is he giving local authorities as to the disposal of carcases? How much longer will we have to wait before there is an integrated food health and agriculture policy?

Mr. MacGregor: I made it absolutely clear that I take very seriously my responsibilities in respect of food, and more of my Department's resources are being devoted to that end. Clearly the hon. Lady was not listening, because in my opening statement I commented on three health measures. We have been engaged in an intensive series of discussions leading to a health action programme, ever since we had information about the new and growing strain of salmonella in question. There has been important research and development undertaken at Bristol, but the research related to the particular inhibition—which it is—in question has been completed, and the next key stage is commercial exploitation. It is that which is being followed up.

Mr. Michael Lord: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the measures he has announced. The egg producers of Suffolk will be grateful as a result. Clearly there is a great problem to be tackled, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been massive over-reaction? Does he agree also that it has created confusion in the minds of many people? I urge him to try to establish, as a matter of priority, the precise scientific and medical facts so that complete confidence may be restored to the general public and the future of a very important industry guaranteed.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that there has been considerable over-reaction. We are endeavouring to get the facts over and to put the whole matter into perspective. That is extremely important, for both consumers and the industry. However, when individual little items come out all the time, it is difficult to respond immediately to each and every one of them. That is why we are trying to put across the basic and fundamental facts. That is most important, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall endeavour to find every possible further way of achieving that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to call all right hon. and hon. Members who wished to put questions. There will be other opportunities later this afternoon and this evening.

Rate Support Grant

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the rate support grant report for 1989–90, and supplementary reports for 1985–86 to 1988–89, which have today been laid before the House and which signal the end of the present system and the move to our major reform of local government finance. I am also announcing today in a written answer my decisions on the applications I have received from rate-capped authorities for a redetermination of their expenditure levels and my decisions on proposed rate limits.
In July, my right hon. Friend designated seven authorities for rate capping in 1989–90 and set expenditure levels for them. I have looked very carefully at the applications that five of those authorities made for redetermination of their expenditure levels. I have concluded that Camden, which is overspending by £216 for every adult, does not need any increase in its expenditure level. Tower Hamlets may spend £1 million more, provided that it establishes proper central financial control; and Greenwich £2 million more, but that will be linked specifically to improved performance on social services—particularly concerning children at risk. Hackney also will be able to spend £2 million more, and Southwark £6 million—but on condition that they make improvements in their rent collection procedures and in other financial matters. Thus, I am linking those extra resources with conditions directed towards the areas of greatest inefficiency in those boroughs.
As a result I have been able to set proposed rate limits for all the capped authorities. On average, the overall local rates for those authorities will be cut by 11 per cent. giving a total saving in bills for the ratepayers of some £46 million. It is now for each authority either to accept its proposed limit or to make representations for a different limit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is today announcing his decision on ILEA's application for a redetermination of its expenditure level and its proposed precept limit.
In July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the main elements of our proposals for next year's RSG settlement. In November a consultation paper was issued which set out full details of the proposals and gave authorities details of their provisional grant entitlements. The main elements of the proposals were that provision for local authority current expenditure should be £29,140 million—an increase of 8·6 per cent. above the 1988–89 settlement, after adjusting for the transfer of polytechnics which from 1 April 1989 will be the responsibility of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The provision is 4·8 per cent. above the amount that authorities have budgeted to spend this year, and broadly in line with the GDP deflator.
Next year taxpayers will provide £13,575 million in grant towards local authority services—£1,100 million more that this year. The amount of grant next year will be increased by 9 per cent., a substantial addition. Grant next year is therefore being set at a generous level and will, as a result of the Rate Support Grants Act 1988, be paid out in full. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the package as a whole is fair and reasonable. For next year we propose that there should be no major changes to the


mechanisms for block grant distribution, and that the methodology for assessing needs should be amended only to take account of the transfer of polytechnics and the costs of preparing for the introduction of the community charge. Finally, we propose that there should be a safety net equivalent to 5p at ratepayer level to limit certain year-on-year grant losses which might otherwise have resulted.
As usual, we have received comments from the local authority associations and representations from about 110 local authorities on the 1989–90 settlement. That is substantially less than in some previous years. It is not possible to produce a settlement that pleases everyone, and inevitably some authorities have done less well than they hoped. However, the lower level of response can, I think, reasonably be interpreted as indicating a broader level of contentment than we have achieved in previous years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) seems to be suggesting that I cannot come to that conclusion. Let me remind him that he came to the opposite conclusion in previous years. He said that everyone was complaining, and that the results were therefore not very good. Now that we receive very few complaints, he says that we cannot interpret this as a very good result. The hon. Gentleman should not make comments from a seated position and expect not to be listened to. He should not make such comments if he wants me to stick to my statement.
There has been a widespread welcome for the certainty about grant entitlements which the Rate Support Grants Act provides, as grant will no longer vary with expenditure and the full amount of grant available will be paid out. We have considered carefully the comments and representations that have been made. We have responded to a number of particular points that authorities have made to us, but otherwise there are no significant changes. The settlement proposals represent a fair and reasonable balance.
Details of grant entitlement are today being sent to all authorities, and copies will be placed in the Library. The grant entitlement for most authorities has changed marginally from those shown in the consultation paper. That is a result of later information on rateable values, later information used in the assessment of needs and revised estimates of specific grants. Overall, local authorities' block grant entitlements have increased by £27 million. The amount of aggregate Exchequer grant remains £13,575 million.
If authorities spend in line with the expenditure provisions made in the rate bill settlement, increases on average need be only 2 per cent. Obviously for some authorities that will not be possible, but this year the extra grant will, and must, keep down rate increases. The settlement as a whole is therefore good news for local government and for ratepayers.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Minister cuts an unlikely Father Christmas figure. What his statement really means is that the average unrebated domestic rate bill is likely to exceed £500 in 1989–90. It is already £468, compared with £131 when Labour left office in 1979. That £500 figure is only the average; for those in both Labour and Tory boroughs who pay more than that the increase will be much more painful.
Why does the Minister bring his office into disrepute by dressing up the figures, when it would be more honest to restate the Government's determination to cut local authority expenditure regardless of the consequences? The cumulative loss of rate support grant since 1979 is £22 billion. That is why local authorities—Labour and Tory—are complaining so bitterly about Government policies. The Government are trying their old trick of pretending that they have not been cutting the block grant, which decides the individual's rate bill, while marginally increasing the aggregate Exchequer grant which pays for Government-related expenditure on, for instance, the police and the fire brigade.
We want answers to several questions. First, will the Government increase rate support grant to take into account the estimated increase in inflation from its present 6·4 per cent. to 7 per cent. next year? Secondly, for the past four or five years the Government have underestimated the effect of cuts in rate support grant—not least, I might add, because of Government-inspired inflation with the increases in water and energy costs. Has the Minister got his sums right this year, or will there be another underestimate?
Thirdly, let us bear in mind that, although the Secretary of State said that rates would go down last year, in many areas—particularly Tory areas—they went up by as much as 40 per cent. The Minister may remember my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) reading out a list of areas—Tory area after Tory area—with increases of 30 or 40 per cent. What guarantee can be given to either Labour or Tory authorities that rates will not rise again because of the Government's mismanagement?
Fourthly, as the Minister has now begun to give a little extra money to rate-capped councils, can he tell us how many local authorities will have their poll tax capped? Finally, is the Minister not trying to lessen the pain of the poll tax by trying to force up the rates now, so that the difference seems slightly less painful when the poll tax is introduced? Nevertheless, people will still remember that the poll tax is a Tory tax.
The Government will continue to try to undermine local democracy and the morale of councillors and council officers alike. What they cannot do is hide the effect of their actions from the public, who can see through the Government's philosophy of private affluence for some and public squalor for all.

Mr. Gummer: It is very difficult to take such comments seriously when we have just announced a grant increase of 9 per cent., and when we have said clearly that the average rate increase that is necessary as a result of the announcement is 2 per cent.—considerably below the inflation rate. It is also extremely difficult to take the hon. Gentleman's comments seriously when he has not understood the position regarding the GDP deflator, which we and others have used in these circumstances and which is taken into account in the figures announced today. It is even more difficult to take seriously the comments of someone who represents some of the most overspending authorities in the country.
There is a very simple way in which rates can be brought down: by Labour authorities spending as they need rather than much more than they need, as they do now. If local authorities under Labour control collected their rents, for example, they could cut their rates. They


could cut their rates if they ran their systems efficiently. As we revealed last week, had we put the community charge in place this year it would be £100 per person more expensive to live in a Labour borough than to live in a Conservative borough. That is because Labour authorities are in general less efficient.
As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the community charge, if we were trying to force up rates we would not produce 9 per cent. extra in grant, nor would we be able to announce that the average rate increase need be only 2 per cent. I do not mind being accused of being devious, but to be accused of being both incompetent and devious seems to me to be a wholly unacceptable accusation. We are neither incompetent nor devious. The figures are clear and the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
There is no need to rate-cap any authority that spends sensibly. A large number of authorities—but now many fewer—do not spend sensibly. Camden, for example, spends 47 per cent. above its class average. That local authority has been rate-selected for the fifth successive year because its spending is 30 per cent. above its needs. How can we do anything but try to hold the rate down for the people who live in Camden? Old, poor and vulnerable people in Camden are being killed every day because of the effects of Camden's rate increases. Unless we hold the rate down, those people will find it impossible to pay their rates. I very much hope that we shall not have to rate-cap any authorities, but it is for Labour local authorities to decide whether they intend to charge too much for the services that they provide.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has struck a fair balance by increasing the rate support grant by £27 million nationally, but I fear that I have to inject a sour note on behalf of the two rural districts in my constituency, Lewes district council and the Wealden district council. My hon. Friend and political neighbour, the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), shares my concern. They have been treated in a way that is quite incomprehensible compared with the nation as a whole and the adjacent borough authorities. My right hon. Friend knows that there is immense concern in those authorities. I hope that the figures—I do not have them yet to hand—will reflect a change of heart on my right hon. Friend's part for 1989–90. Whatever the outcome for 1989–90, is my right hon. Friend able to reassure me that that will not be the base that is used for whatever the rate support grant is to be called after the community charge is introduced? That would be doubly unfair.

Mr. Gummer: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The new grant will be called the needs grant. It will be based upon the needs of the local authority rather than upon any previous spending pattern. If we take together the effect of the arrangements that we have announced today on Lewes and Wealden and on East Sussex, it should mean that the Lewes district council could cut its rate by 2 per cent. and that the Wealden district council could cut its rate by 4 per cent. When my hon. Friend looks at the figures I think that he will see that, overall, his area has been very well treated.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister not accept that the figures that he has not given us are those that show that the Government contribution to local authority services in the next

financial year will increase by only 4·6 per cent., which is substantially less than the rate of inflation, and that the overall Government contribution to local authorities will be down to about 43 per cent., which is 3 per cent. less than this year—a real cut in both cases? As this is the first time, to my recollection, that the right hon. Gentleman is imposing conditions on local authorities—I do not object to those at all—will he in return make sure that they have the money that they really need and that they have asked for to implement the community charge? If, lastly, as a result of the court case that affects Southwark and its social services, we see that there is a substantial need for additional investment there, may I come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that specific constituency matter?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that I cannot comment on the court case, but he is always welcome to come and see me on any constituency problems and I shall listen most carefully to him. I think that his point about rate-capped authorities is met by the fact that, by law, I have to look carefully at all the factors that affect each of those authorities. As a result of doing so, I have produced these figures. Many of the ties that I have imposed on those local authorities are designed to help them to make a number of difficult decisions over priorities. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that in a number of cases—not only in his own area but elsewhere—they were not unreasonable matters to which to draw attention. The whole basis of the law is that one has to take fully into account the ability to reach these ends and to spend at that level. That is why I have made this determination.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the amount that local authorities need for the community charge and the amount that they have asked for, he speaks as though the two were exactly the same. They are not. However, the settlement provides for about the same amount of money as local authorities have asked for. They asked for £107 million and they have got £110 million. There has been a change in the rate of inflation in the meantime, but in general it is the same amount as was asked for. We have also provided what the independent Price Waterhouse report suggested was a reasonable figure. It would not be possible to provide everything that every local authority said that it thought it might need for these activities. The hon. Gentleman would probably agree that that would be surprising. However, we have tried to provide a realistic amount, and I hope that local authorities will work within it.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any objective person must view his statement with some pleasure? He has certainly gone out of his way to meet most of the problems. Certain local authorities, such as the East Devon district authority, will be able to hold their rates at exactly the same level as last year. The East Devon district authority has pursued that policy for many years with considerable success. It is a properly managed Conservative council. What will happen with the county rate heaven alone knows. However, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look again, with the authorities that have been co-operating with him, at the amount that they are able to spend out of the capital sum that they have obtained from selling council houses? My authority wants to spend more than has been allowed for by the Treasury.


It is the authority's money and it believes, having co-operated with the Government, that it ought to be allowed to do so.

Mr. Gummer: I very much respect my hon. Friend's points, but I am not sure whether all the receipts are, in all cases, the authority's money. Much of that money has come from things that have been sold, for which there was a Government grant in the first place. To a certain degree that money belongs to the district authority but also to a certain degree there is a wider remit. I shall look carefully at that point when we consider the new capital arrangements that will be announced in January.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that East Devon district authority should be able to keep its rate at the same level and that if Devon county council were to hold its rate at the same level it would be doing only what this settlement makes possible. If Devon county council does not hold its rate, it will be quite clear that it is not giving value for money. It is also clear that because of the spending in Devon during the last two or three years there ought to be some areas in which expenditure cuts should be made, if the county council were more prudent. However, under the resettlement, Devon county council should certainly be able to hold its rate at the present level.

Mr. Kevin Barron: During the last four years the Rotherham metropolitan borough council has consistently suffered cuts in its housing investment programme. That has created grave housing problems. This year the council has been made responsible by this Government for buying back, under the Housing Act 1988, defective houses that were sold by other public bodies in my constituency. It is causing many problems. It is holding up vital housing programmes, such as those for the elderly and the single in the Rotherham metropolitan borough. Because of our problems, these cuts cannot continue.

Mr. Gummer: The Government have given a great deal of help in that direction, but if the hon. Gentleman feels that the Government have not looked sufficiently at Rotherham's problems I shall be very happy to consider them. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the settlement that I have just announced it ought to be possible for the rates in Rotherham to be increased by no more than 3 per cent.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the rates in Derbyshire increase by more than the rate of inflation, bearing in mind that Derbyshire is already the highest-rated county in England, it will be solely the responsibility of the irresponsible and profligate leadership of the county council? Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that the first Government actually to cut the rate support grant was the last Labour Government?

Mr. Gummer: Under the settlement, Derbyshire ought to be able to cut its rate by about 6 per cent., the rate in Amber Valley should be able to go down by 4 per cent. and the rate in Erewash by 5 per cent. Derbyshire is being given a particularly favourable arrangement because we have removed the cap. Therefore, I very much hope that Mr. Bookbinder will take it as a personal offer and make sure that he cuts the rate this year.

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the Minister really say that old people in Camden are being killed because of the impact of high rates? I am sure that the Minister said that, and I am sure that he will want to withdraw it. Quite frankly, that is a grotesque thing to say about any local authority. He must realise that Camden has some of the worst homelessness and social services problems in London, so it is really not surprising that it is unable to meet the Government's spending target. However, for the Minister to say that it is responsible for killing old people in that borough is grotesque, irresponsible and should be withdrawn immediately.

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to withdraw any such imputation. I am absolutely willing to withdraw it and the hon. Gentleman need not make all that humbug and noise about it. I am very sorry if that is what he took it to mean. He knows perfectly well that I was using that expression in a particular way and I am very sorry that it upset him. However, I am not sorry to say that Camden is perfectly able to provide proper services at considerably less cost. It is a badly organised and badly run local authority. That is why it spends 30 per cent. more than it should.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be considerable disappointment in my constituency of Langbaurgh? People will fail to understand how, after representations to five different Ministers in four years, the Government have come up with two and a half times as much money for Stockton-on-Tees, four times as much money for Hartlepool, and, even allowing for the technical college, 10 times as much for Middlesbrough. Does the Minister think that the answer came out of the same multiplier of 1.0322304, and would it have been manifestly different if it had been 1.032303?

Mr. Gummer: It might not have been manifestly different, but it would have been less accurate. I know the problem. Any local authority looking at its neighbours will feel that it should have as much money as those neighbours when it has considered and measured their needs. However, we have to apply certain national methods of trying to measure people's needs. What we give to Stockton and what we give to Langbaurgh is based upon needs which are assessed not by me but by some objective standards and criteria, from which one cannot move.
That is how we do it. My difficulty is that it does not help Suffolk very much and I am not terribly able to help Suffolk Coastal, but I cannot change the statistics to fit our constituencies. However, on the basis of the settlement, it should be possible for Langbaurgh to keep its rate increases to within 2 per cent. That does not seem unreasonable in the present circumstances, and I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage his local authority to recognise that next year when we move to a better system and when we have a new method of assessing needs, if there is some reality in the argument of his local authority, it may well be reflected there. I cannot promise him that we will move from an objective to a subjective system, although, like my hon. Friend, I sometimes wish that we could, because then I could help Suffolk Coastal rather more.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Did the Minister say that he was ordering an 11 per cent. cut in the rates of


rate-capped authorities? If he said so, is that a standard figure for all the rate-capped authorities and how did he reach that figure? Secondly, what figure did he use for inflation? It is well known that local authority inflation is much higher than national inflation.

Mr. Gummer: I deny that the second factor is well known. It is actually not true and it is not acceptable. Local authorities have much more control over their own spending. They can decide their level of staffing and service, and they also do much of the negotiations for wage increases, so they have very direct control over their costs. If the hon. Gentleman had been here, he would have heard me say that the effect of the implied change in local rates of the rate-capping which I announced ranged around a whole series of figures. For example, in Tower Hamlets it might well mean a cut of 46 per cent. and in Greenwich there would be a rate increase of 10 per cent., so it is not a fixed figure. It depends on what expenditure level is set. Therefore, I have explained it very clearly.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will notice that the effect of the settlement on his own borough of Haringey should mean that Haringey could cut its rate by 6 per cent. I hope that he will encourage it to do that, because Haringey needs to give something back to the people living in that authority by way of the quality of the service it provides and value for money in providing that service.

Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister implied that. I was not here during his statement. I have been here throughout these exchanges and I ask him to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether that was said.

Mr. Gummer: I apologise if I implied that.

Mrs. Teresa. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend's Department for its work in the past in holding down the rates in spendthrift boroughs. Part of my constituency is covered by Basildon council which is known as "Moscow on the Thames" for its politics and as the "Rockefeller foundation" for the way in which it doles out public money to all and sundry. Two constituents who came to my surgery at the weekend pointed out that Basildon is threatening a rate increase of more than 40 per cent. because it had previously been rate-capped and kept below the required figure. How will those families manage and what will the Government do should Basildon impose such an increase? A family currently paying £200 a month in rates would simply have to move house in order to manage in future. How will my right hon. Friend's announcement help those people?

Mr. Gummer: As a result of the settlement Basildon ought not to increase its rate at all. That is what the settlement implies. Therefore, if it increases its rate, local people will know that that will be because it is providing a greater number of services, or because it is overspending. It will be for local people to decide which explanation applies. Under the community charge, it will be very much more clear when a local authority is spending beyond its needs or when it is spending more than its neighbours. The electorate will have a much clearer understanding of the accountability of its local authority and I suspect that Basildon will have to think very carefully, in a way that it has not had to do until now, as to whether it is sensible to spend ratepayers' money in the way in which it has in the

past. Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend will use her undoubted publicity abilities —I shall not apologise for that—to make sure that people in Basildon know that there need be no rate increase and that in neighbouring Thurrock the increase could be kept to about 2 per cent.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister assure the House that the settlement has taken fully into account soaring interest rates under the present Government which have imposed large increases in charges on local authorities? Will the rate support grant settlement for Bradford mean that Bradford city council will be sufficiently confident about the future not to sack 13 remedial teachers, as it has it in mind to dispose of their services at the end of the year? Will it be able to embark on a building programme to replace at least some of the 500 temporary classrooms which accommodate school-children in Bradford? Some of those classrooms are so old that the money allocated for permanent buildings is being used to repair temporary classrooms, and that seems a funny priority.

Mr. Gummer: Lest he feels that I have been particularly favourable towards Bradford, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Bradford is in the same position as Derbyshire. Because of the removal of rate capping, Bradford should be able to reduce its rate by 6 per cent. as a result of the settlement. From what I understand of Bradford council's proposals, it ought soon to begin to enjoy the advantages of good housekeeping and value for money, for which it was elected and which, I believe, it will achieve. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt continue to provide examples of Bradford city council's activities and I am sure that I shall hear some as well. When the time comes, the electorate will make its decision.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the long-suffering ratepayers of Ealing? Does he agree that their rates ought to be reduced under this generous settlement? Ealing's rates increased by 65 per cent. in 1987 and were reduced by rate capping by 25 per cent. in 1988. We have been promised a rate increase of between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent., perhaps more, next year by the Labour council. Will the Minister confirm that the abolition of the police and equal opportunities unit would save £5 million tomorrow? Also, if people who had lived in the borough for a certain period or who had been born there were accepted as homeless by a restoration of residents' points, the high cost of homelessness would be reduced and people would be spared much suffering.

Mr. Gummer: I have a particular interest in the London borough of Ealing because I live there during the week. I noticed the enormous rate increase that occurred when the Labour party was elected, and I benefited from the cut in that rate increase when rate capping took place. This settlement should mean that Ealing can keep its rate increase to within 5 per cent.—rather than the sums mentioned by my hon. Friend—based on expected spending. Ealing borough council has undertaken a series of activities that are expensive for the ratepayer and he has only mentioned some of them. There is considerable scope for Ealing borough council to reduce its expenditure, improve its services and cut its rates.

Mr. A. J. Beith: What has the Minister done about the injustice—to which I referred in


a letter—under which Northumberland county council faces a £400,000 bill over and above the amount it has previously paid for advanced further education under the changed AFE arrangements? Bearing in mind that the Exchequer's share of the county's expenditure has gone down from 61 per cent. to 37 per cent. since 1981, what will the Minister do about it? I hope that he will not stray too far into party politics and will remember that his party is supporting mine in trying to ensure that the council is well run.

Mr. Gummer: I hope that I do not. Northumberland has a £1·8 million increase in its grant under the settlement. Therefore, the county should be responsible for an increase of about 6 per cent. In Alnwick, the increase would be 4 per cent., in Berwick it would be 7 per cent. and in Castle Morpeth it would be 2 per cent. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is talking about reasonable sums that are about the same as the rise in inflation. He should not be upset about that. The hon. Gentleman's point is perfectly reasonable. He knows that when we adjust for the payments for polytechnics that were previously carried by local authorities, the position is slightly distorted because some authorities are out of grant. That means that Northumberland feels that it is carrying more than it would otherwise. In those circumstances, local government will bear the same burden of the cost of polytechnics as it used to. That is not unreasonable.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his 9 per cent. increase will be greatly welcomed in Lancashire? What advice does he have for the Labour leaders of Lancashire county council who increased rates by 18 per cent. last year in areas of high unemployment, thereby increasing industry's costs and making it more difficult to attract new investment? What does he have to say to them about this settlement for next year's rate?

Mr. Gummer: Lancashire has made a point of encouraging enterprise and finding ways of bringing new firms to replace old jobs. If it kept its rate within the 2 per cent., which is what seems to be necessary, that would help jobs and enable west Lancashire, my hon. Friend's constituency, to keep its rate increase to about 5 per cent. That would be reasonable and it would help jobs in Lancashire. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to explain that to the Labour leaders of Lancashire county council.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): In answering the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) the Minister criticised Derbyshire county

council. The hon. Member for Amber Valley claimed that it was the highest rated shire county in the country. If one looks at the rateable value per head of population, which will be relevant to the community charge, one can see that it is not in that position. Would the Minister advise it to cut its education standards by destroying one of the best staff-student ratios in the country or should it increase the cost of meals which are provided efficiently and at the lowest cost of all shire counties?

Mr. Gummer: Derbyshire should do what any efficient local authority would do. It should see how many of its services could be better run by others in competition. It should not waste money by stamping, "Nuclear-free zone" on school writing paper. It should spend less money on the advertising procedures of Derbyshire county council, which seems particularly keen on advertising its leader. It should dispel public disquiet by saying on what terms Mr. Reg Race was taken on and removed as the chief executive of the county council and it might also explain why it was necessary to appoint a chief executive, or similar figure, who came from a party political background. It could do all that.

Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend has already mentioned Suffolk, in which both he and I have an interest. He knows that it is far from being a profligate county. On the basis of today's statement, how will Suffolk county council and mid-Suffolk district council fare next year? What will their rate levels be, since they both feel that they are being treated unfairly yet again?

Mr. Gummer: The county council, which my hon. Friend and I share and which we believe to be a well-run local authority, is less happy than many about this settlement, partly because it feels that it should be possible for me to provide it with a better deal. Under this settlement it will be possible to keep the rate increase to about 5 per cent. In Ipswich, there will have to be about a 7 per cent. increase and in mid-Suffolk about a 5 per cent. increase. In other words, the increases will be about the same as the cost of living increase.
I know that that is a difficult answer for Suffolk. It feels that there should be an increase because of its prudence over the years. I have explained that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) parallel those of my local authority but I have to say again that the purpose of changing to a needs grant is that it will help us to give according to the needs of local authorities rather than according to historic expenditure levels. We should give
to each according to his needs.
That has always seemed to be a good phrase.

Members' Interests

Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recant that last Thursday I raised with you a matter concerning the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he would raise it as a matter of privilege. He has written to me and I have not yet replied. I am considering the matter.

Mr. Mullin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a result of my raising the matter on Thursday, I received today a letter from the hon. Member for Erewash which said:
As a matter of courtesy I am advising you that I shall seek to raise this afternoon, on a point of order, your remarks last Thursday.
I am here but I am disappointed to see that the hon. Member for Erewash is not present. People will draw their own conclusion about that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will be raising the matter on a point of order. It may be dealt with tomorrow.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I received a similar letter and am similarly disappointed that the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) is not present. With regard to remarks that you, Mr. Speaker, made following earlier exchanges, I informed the hon. Member for Erewash, albeit at short notice, that I would be raising this. I explained to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that, following a long series of points of order, I had to leave the Chamber. I certainly did not intend not to hear him or mean any discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

Child Protection

5 pm

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its disgust and alarm at the spread of child abuse throughout the United Kingdom; welcomes the provisions contained within the Criminal Justice Act 1988 designed to protect children and to deter potential child abusers; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the range of sentences available to the courts are regularly reviewed, are sufficient to enable the courts to deal effectively with those who commit offences against children, and strong enough to serve as a deterrent to those who may act towards a child in an unnatural way.
When Back Benchers win a little Front Bench time, as we have this afternoon, it is important to maximise the opportunity. I felt it important, just before Christmas—which is a time for children—to lay one or two markers and remind those who regard children in an unnatural way and might be potential child abusers of what might be in store for them. Unless they understand that, all the provisions that we pass are just a punishment. They will not be a deterrent unless we get across what will be in store for the child abuser.
Today, many more people are likely to be caught and charged than previously. Many more are much more likely to be convicted and receive a custodial sentence. It is not common knowledge, but life in prison is usually hell for such classified offenders.
The general deterrent effect of those elements is not easy to measure. The inference most commonly drawn from research studies is that the probability of arrest and conviction is most likely to deter potential offenders. Others believe that severity of sentence is the key to deterrence, but the poor quality of prison life should not be ignored. Taking all those elements together, anyone should think twice before touching a child in an unnatural way, be it physical or sexual.
Why are offenders more likely to be caught and charged today? Children find it much easier to tell because they have been listened to. We have got the message across to children that it is all right to tell, which is good. Friends, neighbours and grandparents are much more alert. School teachers watch for certain signs, and I shall give a few examples of such signs. It is a sign if a child who formerly was a chatterbox is sullen and withdrawn at school. Another is if, when they change for PE, they seem to have lost a lot of weight or are bruised. Teachers are much more alert to those signs.
Social services, voluntary support agencies and the police are working better as teams. Child care law has improved. The Children Bill, which I am sure will be amended, will help those at the sharp end—the field workers who must keep an eye on children at risk. Child protection is a high-risk business and we rely heavily on those in the field to detect, counsel and prevent abuse.
I should like to mention something that is bothering me, and it is the only time that I will be a little political, but I believe that child protection has all-party support. I am gravely concerned about jobs for the boys in social services. People throughout the country have fallen down on the job, but have been moved to other authorities, sometimes with grave results. It has happened at every level and goes right to the top. If a director shows lack of management skills and is criticised by his board he is unlikely to secure a directorship of an identical company,


yet in social services potential problems are laundered between local authorities. I can give many examples, such as the former assistant director of the London borough of Brent, who is now the director of the London borough of Southwark. He was criticised in the Jasmine Beckford tragedy, and now a child has died in Southwark. I cannot go further because a court case is pending and it is sub judice, but I report that as a fact. This week, Manchester city council appointed the former director of Cleveland social services, who was criticised by the Cleveland inquiry, and deep concern has been expressed in Manchester. I want to lay down that marker because it is causing people concern and the position must be watched.
Why did I say that people are more likely to be convicted today? The Criminal Justice Act 1988 has led to an improvement, and under section 32, children under 14 are able to give evidence at court through a live television link. A pilot scheme has been operating in Bexley, but from 5 January the process will be accelerated to include selected courts. Many cases have broken down because a poor little child has had to look across court and face the person who abused him, which is tragic. Hon. Members must think of the poor little child who must face the person who has been awful to him. Most adults know that a court is not a nice place to appear, but what is it like for a child? The extension of the pilot scheme is wonderful news; it works well in America and I am sure that it will be a great success here. I congratulate the Home Office and the police on introducing it so quickly in the courts.
Committal proceedings in magistrates' courts are now designed to be less of an ordeal for children. A child may not be called as a witness, so the court can rely on the child's statement, which will spare the child. There are exceptions to cover the prosecution's needs, but by and large children will be spared from having to give evidence in magistrates' courts, which is wonderful.
Under section 34 of the Act, the requirement that the unsworn evidence of children must be corroborated has been abolished. Judges are no longer required to warn the jury about convicting the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of a witness simply because the witnesss is a child. As one would expect, the general rules on corroboration must still be respected, but it is a wonderful step forward. A child's unsworn evidence has now been put on the same footing as that of an adult, as long as the court is satisfied that the child is possessed of sufficient intelligence and understands the duty of speaking the truth.
Much more important is the fact that the unsworn evidence of one child may corroborate the sworn or unsworn evidence of another. The merit of that change is that evil paedophiles abuse a child not in front of an audience but in secret—which is why it is hard to obtain convictions—and often the only other witness is a child, so Parliament has straightened out that problem. We can see the net closing on abusers in a sensible way. I hope that that message will go outside Parliament. All would-be child abusers should understand that, with the advent of genetic fingerprinting, the net of detection and conviction is being drawn ever tighter.
Another matter in which I am interested is the examination of whether children's video evidence—that is, recorded first statements—could be another way forward. There is an advisory group under the chairmanship of

Judge Thomas Pigot, Common Serjeant of the City of London. In his team are detective chief superintendent Anthony Kilkerr of the Metropolitan police, who has been closely involved with the Bexley experimental project in video recordings of interviews with children; Mr. Roy Parker, the assistant director of social services in Sunderland; Miss Anne Rafferty, a barrister with considerable experience in child abuse cases; and Ms. Jennifer Temkin, a lecturer in law at the London School of Economics and an expert on domestic violence. I cannot predict the result of their work, but I hope that they will move in the right direction.
In the American states that I have been in touch with, 80 per cent. of defendants change their pleas to guilty when the first video recording is shown. Sometimes they do so through remorse, and sometimes purely because they do not want such films to be shown in open court. For whatever reason, if we can get 80 per cent. to change their pleas to guilty, think how we shall spare the children. How can children be expected to remember everything when a case goes through committal proceedings and into the county court? How can we expect a child who is filling its head with new ideas every minute of the day—learning all the time—to remember the precise incidents that happened months ago? The system was loaded towards the child abuser. We have had to restore the balance. I cannot predict the result of the advisory group's work, but I hope and pray that it will give this a try. It is important.
The question whether video-recorded evidence should be readily admissible in court cases in which children are victims of abuse is complex. It is of paramount importance that anything that we do should be in the interests of child victims of such detestable crimes. In the wider interests of justice, we must guard against any risk of unwittingly increasing the stress and suffering to which the criminal process exposes child victims. At the same time, we must protect the right of the accused person to a full and fair trial.
Why did I say that people have a much greater chance of receiving a custodial sentence for tampering with children? Such is the public outrage that judges are tending to take a strong line when sentencing those convicted of child abuse, whether physical or sexual. Section 36(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allows the Attorney-General to refer a case to the Court of Appeal when it appears to him that the sentence handed down by the Crown court has been unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal will have power to quash the sentence and to replace it with
such sentence as they think appropriate for the case",
in view of the sentencing powers which were available to the Crown court but which it did not use. That is a big step forward, particularly for people such as myself, who have had their hands smacked time and again for criticising judges. However, that practice has worked, because the good old Home Office has come up trumps. It is just what we wanted—just what we have been fighting for—and it is wonderful news.
I hope that parents, when they hear about the Bill, will be convinced that we are on the warpath today. Several Commonwealth countries follow this practice, and it works well.
There was a recent case in which a judge apologised for only being able to give the maximum sentence of two years for cruelty. A baby was so cruelly treated that it died. Section 45 of the Criminal Justice Act and the


corresponding provision for Scotland increase the maximum term of imprisonment for cruelty to children under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 from two years to 10 years. That is a wonderful step forward. That increased term of imprisonment followed the outrage surrounding that case.
Many cases have failed by a whisker to satisfy a jury that murder or manslaughter was intended. Defendants were then convicted of cruelty under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Babies and children died from their batterings, and two years' maximum custodial sentence was the result. A term of 10 years' imprisonment is now available for offences committed after 29 September 1988. That is wonderful.
I mentioned that prison could be hell. As a humble Back Bencher, perhaps I am able to deal with this matter more easily than the Home Office can, as it must be cautious about what goes on inside prisons. Prisoners do not take kindly to child abusers. Sometimes, prisoners were victims in their younger lives, and the experience has sharpened their attitudes. Some think of their own children, and are pained that they are not free to protect them. That is important. They compare their sentences with those of child batterers and child sexual offenders and feel aggrieved. For that reason, at times certain prisoners must be placed under section 43 provisions for their own protection. Child abusers should get the message that that could mean solitary confinement. In some cases, it means being shut up only with other child abusers. It means a lack of exercise. They must be prevented from meeting other prisoners. They have little work. They cannot be sent off to the workshop. They have few privileges. For example, they cannot sit in television rooms with other prisoners. Life in prison is hell and restricted. It is time people got the message because the net is tightening.
The possession of child pornography is now a criminal offence. It was a defence to say that it was for a person's own use. The Bill will protect children, because children must be procured to produce such disgusting material. Child pornography corrupts adults and entices them to seek the real thing. We must reflect on how many children go missing or are murdered to satisfy the lust of paedophiles.
I have resisted the temptation to dwell on the growth of the occult and groups practising black witchcraft, devil worship, black magic and satanism, but work to deal with this growth is going on behind the scenes, and it is proceeding very well. Children are being delivered from the hands of such groups. It is evil, it is spreading, but many of us are fighting. I will not mar my speech by moving down that road today, but I shall return to that subject because it is worse than any hon. Member would dream.
We have also amended sentences for serious attacks on children. Murder, rape, grievous bodily harm and buggery now carry a maximum of life imprisonment. That is how it should be. Also, spouses of alleged child abusers can be compelled to give evidence against them. That is an important step. We are continually seeking to restore the balance between the child abuser and the child, so that, when cases go to court, there is at least a sporting chance of properly sorting out matters under the legal system.
For more than 10 years those of us who have actively been working with children and families have strongly believed that the 32 Acts on child care law have created unnecessary confusion. In recent years a number of

documents—in 1984 the Select Committee report on children in care, the 1985 Jasmine Beck ford report, the 1987 Kimberly Carlile report, the 1987 Tyra Henry report, the 1988 Cleveland report, and the 1987 Government White Paper entitled "The Law on Child Care and Family Services"—have drawn attention to the need for major reforms to meet the contemporary needs of children and assist social workers and others.
The Children Bill is, without doubt, the most important legislation dealing with children to be introduced for many years. The foundation stone on which the new child care framework is constructed is the welfare of the child, and that is right. Hon. Members will remember that the phrase "a child in trust" was used after the Jasmine Beckford case. It is wonderful that we have got that message here.
It is my honour to serve on the all-party parliamentary children's group. The group's chairman, Baroness Faithful, has gathered together a strong group of child care specialists and is working tirelessly to ensure that sensible amendments are tabled to the Children Bill. Children and families will have much for which to thank Baroness Faithful when they remember her work on this subject over many years. What are we up to behind the scenes? We are carrying out a detailed study of the Children Bill and trying to maximise the golden opportunity that it provides by suggesting helpful improvements. I do not expect that all of them will be taken on hoard, but the Bill will be far better than it is at the moment.
I have the Bill here, but I do not want to be accused of introducing it in the House. However, hon. Members may be interested to know that part I deals with general principles on child welfare, part II with orders in respect of children in family and other proceedings, part III with local authority support for children and families. part IV with care and supervision, part V with emergency protection, part VI with community homes, part VII with the organisation of voluntary homes, part VIII with registered children's homes and part IX with private fostering arrangements. The Bill contains about 80 clauses, but there are improvements to be made. I hope for improvements to protect the rights of grandparents, and I am sure that they will come.
Much work is being done by dedicated people and I am pleased about that. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the dedicated people working in the area of child protection and the wonderful fund-raising groups who support organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Children's Home, Dr. Barnardo's, Childwatch and other groups too numerous to mention. I do not know what we should do without them because they are wonderful organisations which are working hard to protect children.
I do not believe that extra financial resources are always the answer. I believe that the good management of existing resources, strict guidelines and first class communication with other interested agencies are the key, as long as Parliament produces the right framework—as we are, with the help of the Opposition. Of course, more resources will be required when the Bill is enacted and I am sure that provision has been made already for that. May I ask the Government to consider spending a little extra on television advertising late in the evening, pointing out the consequences of child abuse? I hope that the message will say, as I said earlier, that child abusers must recognise that they are far more likely to be caught and charged, far more


likely to be convicted and far more likely to receive a custodial sentence and that prison will be hell. Some paedophiles may think that it is worth touching a child, but they will be for the high jump. If we have put that message across this afternoon, we have done well.

Miss Joan Lestor: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) for raising this matter. I agree, to some extent, with what he has said. It is a pity that we have not had a full debate on the Cleveland report and its implications, but we shall have a chance, during the passage of the Children Bill, to raise many of the matters that we could have discussed in a debate on Cleveland. Of course, I support most of the provisions in the Bill.
I do not want to fall out with the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth on any matter, but I am not convinced that the physical or sexual abuse of children is spreading. I believe that many more cases are being reported and, as the hon. Gentleman said, children have been given the confidence to come forward and complain, whereas in the past they did not have that confidence. The evidence does not show that there is any greater incidence of child abuse, but we now provide the facilities for people to come forward and there is greater vigilance by people who are working with children, enabling them to detect abuse.
I do not want to follow up the hon. Gentleman's comments on what happens, or what should happen, in prison. Our work is to find out why men abuse children—and it is, in the main, men. We do not know the full story and I am not convinced that simply to threaten people with long terms of imprisonment and violence in prison will necessarily deter them. The all-party parliamentary children's group heard evidence from a person who deals with sexual abusers and who put forward the theory that the sexual abuse of children is sometimes addictive behaviour. We have yet to solve the problem of how to deal with that. However, anything that deters such people is to be welcomed, if we ensure that they are deterred in the long term.
I am the last person to want to suggest that a person who has been sexually or physically abused as a child will grow up to be an abuser. However, I want to underline to anybody who saw the recent television programme in which violent men were interviewed that the main thread that ran through the history of all those violent men was that they had themselves suffered violence as small children. We must therefore consider carefully the treatment and therapy given to children who have been abused in any way. If we do not, there will be a minority—I stress the word minority—whom we shall later call all the foul names on which we can lay our tongues because they repeat the pattern. Such people are a minority, because most people successfully survive those early experiences.
Those of us who have been interested in the problem of child sexual abuse know that many adults now come forward and say how glad they are to talk about what happened to them when they were children. They have never talked about it before, but have managed to cope somehow. It would have been better if the facilities that we

are now beginning to develop to treat abused children had been available for them. Some of the people who have disclosed the fact that they were abused as children have kept quiet for 30, 40, 50 or more years. If only the help and facilities had been available for them to come forward and complain, their lives might have been far happier.
That point brings me to the main reason why I wanted to take part in this debate. Through the Children Bill, and in other ways, the Government are moving towards providing greater protection for children and better training and help for those dealing with children. However, it is a pity that the Government did not decide on three-year training courses for social work. There are two other important points, which can be dealt with. I recently asked the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), when she was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, in a written question, what the Government were doing to ensure that undesirable people did not set up child-lines. That is an area that is wide open to abuse—so much so that Valerie Howarth of Childline wrote to the Department in March about the matter. That arose out of an incident at Childline when a person was making inappropriate contact, as she described it, with children through the use of the child-line facility. It was discovered that there was no way in which that individual—or any other who wished to use the telephone service in that way—could be prevented from doing so. The magazine Social Work Today also took the matter up. I should not simply have been brushed aside and told that there was no need for any protective measures but that if I knew of any cases I should report them to the police. It is not my job, and I do not have the facilities, to monitor the people who set up child-lines. The Government should be looking at some form of registration and monitoring system. Child-lines can do great and useful work with children, but they are open to abuse if the wrong people are on the end of the line. I hope that the Government will reconsider. As the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said, this is not a party political issue; all of us are worried about what is happening to children.
The other day, I asked what the Government were doing to ensure that voluntary organisations dealing with children had access to the police records of those whom they employed. I believe that I am right in saying that it is four years since the recommendation was made, and that local authorities have the facilities—and have been helped—to gain access to the police records of those whom they may employ. I was told that a pilot scheme for voluntary organisations would be set up some time in the summer. There has been much foot-dragging on this matter, which has been raised with me by various voluntary organisations whose employees have direct contact with children.
Recently a man who was used by a local authority to foster children on a voluntary basis was found to have been abusing those children over a long period. When I was out of the House for four years, I was director of the trade union child care project, so I had a chance to consider these problems in detail. Anyone who has been involved in such matters will know the difficulties that organisations face in finding out the background of those whom they employ. Anyone who reads what has happened to children who have been removed from home because they have been sexually abused will know that occasionally—too often—those children are abused again by the very


people who are supposed to be protecting them. It would be foolish to say that that happens everywhere all the time; of course it does not. But there are instances. Having made it easier for the local authorities to gain access to the police records of people whom they may employ to care for children, we should help all voluntary organisations to ensure that potential employees have no record of abusing or interfering with children.
We shall never get it absolutely right; many people will get round any provision that we make and unfortunately there will always be new abusers coming on the scene. We can at least seek to ensure, however, that no one with a record of child abuse is appointed to care for children or put into a position of trust by them.
The answers that I received on the telephone counselling services and on the employees of voluntary organisations contradict the aims of the Children Bill and many of the positive steps that the Government have taken to try to deal with physical and sexual child abuse. It is important that we should vet those in contact with children as well as we can. Otherwise we shall be betraying the children who have been removed from their families because they have been abused—another betrayal of children by adults. It is no surprise to me that many youngsters who have suffered abuse two or three times grow up feeling that they can never trust an adult again because they are betrayed wherever they turn.
If we are to encourage children to say what is happening to them—the change in the climate has helped us to do that—we must ensure that help is available for them. I regret that we did not decide to extend the training period and I believe that we have much to do in that respect. Any child who has been physically, sexually or emotionally abused—although the last is perhaps a matter for another time—needs special help afterwards from a trained person. Children who do not get such help will have great difficulty in coping with their lives, particularly as they reach maturity. It is important that the people with whom children are placed should have proper training and should properly understand the difficulties and emotional problems that those children will face. Life will be tough enough for them anyway and we shall be betraying them if we do not place them with people who have the expertise and training necessary to deal with their problems.

Mr. Roger Sims: I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important subject and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) for initiating the debate, even if I would not perhaps have chosen exactly the same phrases he did.
My hon. Friend referred to the spread of child abuse, but, as the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, we simply do not know the extent of child abuse. Until recently, child abuse was recorded only by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in child abuse registers and they probably accounted for less than 10 per cent. of cases. I warmly welcome the Government's establishment of a national child abuse register, although it will take time before that is fully operational and its records can be taken as accurate. As the hon. Member for Eccles said, the number of adults who told us following the establishment of Childline that they had been abused as children is proof that we do not know the full extent of

child abuse. That abuse had been hidden for years. There is no way that we can know the extent of child abuse, and we must take the figures at face value.
I agree that we need a range of sentences for dealing with such offences, as the motion suggests. The House will recall the general philosophy behind sentencing: the aim is to punish the offender and show society's detestation of the offence committed. It is, if possible, to reform the offender, or at least, while he is in custody, to prevent the recurrence of the offence, and it is to deter others from committing similar offences.
In child abuse cases, there is a different element. I refer, of course, to the interests of the child. In some cases it may be best for the father to finish up in prison but in others counselling and family therapy may enable the family to stay together, which is a far better outcome. Let us also bear it in mind that the very prospect of a prison sentence for the father—who is often the abuser—may deter the child from disclosing the fact that he or she has been abused. We must take that into account. In any case, sentencing is only a small part of the battle against child abuse. One could argue that each sentence is an admission that society has failed in that case to protect the child. We must do all we can to try to prevent abuse from occurring in the first place.
One is expected to have some qualification or training for most things nowadays, but one exception is parenting: one does not even have to be married to be a parent. All of us who are parents know just how hard it is to bring up children—to cope with a crying baby, to nurse a sick child or to handle a difficult youngster. Parenting does not come easily or naturally, and we have recently had royal endorsement of that fact. We need training for parenthood, and that is the theme of the current NSPCC campaign "Putting Children First". The NSPCC is known for what used to be its inspectors, who were known colloquially as "cruelty men". The inspectors have now been replaced by child protection teams, and I emphasise the word "protection".
If I refer frequently to the NSPCC, it is because I have the honour to sit on its central executive committee. Perhaps I may add that I occupy a position once occupied by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whose support for the society not only publicly but in many discreet ways belies the uncaring label so unjustly attached to her. The society appreciates the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who is not present for the good reason that he is attending an NSPCC function in Leicester. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) in his new capacity in the Department of Health and we all look forward to working with him. In addition to the NSPCC there are other bodies doing sterling work in this area—for example, the Church of England Children's Society and Barnardo's, to mention but two.
Training for parenthood can take place in schools, but it should not be confined to girls; boys become parents too. It can be carried out in youth clubs. Pregnant mothers are taught basic baby care, but it is important that both parents are encouraged to learn how to look after children as they develop. The child protection teams provide family care and help in learning parenting skills and to meet children's needs. That can he done in family centres, in the home or simply by the use of literature. I draw the


attention of the House to the admirable guide issued by the NSPCC called "Putting Children First". It is easily available to all parents, and it is a useful document.
It is important that we put the court cases to which attention has naturally been drawn into perspective with the problem as a whole. In the year ending September 1987, the NSPCC had referred to it 23,000 cases involving 45,000 children. Of these, only 120 led to court proceedings and 446 to court actions. This year's figures, which are to be published shortly, are likely to show a small reduction in the overall figures, but a similar proportion. Of those cases some 58 per cent. are referred to the society by members of the general public.
It is interesting to note that 18 per cent. of the cases are referred by parents themselves. They may have come to the end of their tether. All of us who have been parents can understand how near one can get to that point. Parents turn to the society and seek and receive help. All parents should know that that service is available from their local child protection team 24 hours a day.
We think of child abuse in terms of physical or sexual abuse, but of the most recent year's figures, 21 per cent. involved physical abuse, 15 per cent. sexual abuse and 23 per cent. neglect. Children were underfed or badly clothed. Some 16 per cent. were cases of children simply being left alone; one might describe that as negative abuse. To deprive a child of love, care and proper clothing and nourishment is as much an abuse as striking that child.
If time allowed, I could cite several cases to show that, including some where the poverty is not material but emotional with potentially tragic consequences. It is important that all such cases are spotted at an early stage. There is a real need for professionals, social workers, teachers, parents and health visitors to be able to detect early signs of child abuse. The NSPCC offers a national training scheme for such professionals. Its value is recognised by the financial assistance which the Government provide for that training. The Minister is today at the new training centre in Leicester.
Despite these measures, incidents of child abuse occur and they must be dealt with by the courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 strengthens the courts' powers in several ways which I need not repeat. I warmly endorse his plea that the Pigot committee should proceed as rapidly as possible with its task so that we can see whether we can take the extremely valuable step forward of being able to use, not simply a video link, but video recordings in court cases. The issue has been fully debated in the past and I hope that it will not be long before we can take this valuable step. It is useful as the child does not have to appear in court. There are other valuable spin-offs, in that it assists police and social workers in pursuing their aspects of the case if they have not simply a written but a video record of what the child says took place.
I, too, warmly welcome the Children Bill which is being debated in another place. It seeks to strike the balance between the rights of children and the rights of parents which is so important, as was made clear recently in Cleveland. It also seeks to describe where and how the state should step in and take over as a parent. I have sat as the chairman of a juvenile court and made care orders,

deciding in the name of the state to take children away from their mother and put them into care, so I know what a serious but sometimes necessary step that is.
Later in the Session, we shall have an opportunity to examine the Bill in detail, but perhaps I can refer to one omission which is relevant to today's debate. At present, if an officer of the social services or the NSPCC has suspicions or information about a particular child, calls at the house and either receives no reply or hears that the child is asleep or "away with aunty", there is little that he or she can do. If that happens several times, the social worker is in a dilemma, either to let the matter rest or to return armed with a warrant and a place of safety order and literally take the child away.
The House may recall that in April my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West, (Mrs. Bottomley), who would certainly have taken part in this debate had she not been elevated to ministerial rank, introduced, under the 10-minute rule procedure, the Medical Examination of Children at Risk Bill. It gave the power to social workers in such cases to serve an order on the parents, requiring them to produce that child for medical examination within three days. That would not deprive the parents of the child, but it would put the onus on the parents to produce the child. It would be a valuable weapon in the fight against child abuse, and I hope that we can add it to the Bill when it comes before this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth and I approached this subject perhaps from slightly different angles, but we share the same views, and I thank him again for this opportunity to discuss it.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) on tabling this motion. As he rightly said, this matter has the support of all parts of the House. We are all deeply concerned about the protection of the child. I add to the points that the hon. Gentleman made our appreciation of all the agencies that carry out this work. I do not want to list them, because I may leave one out. I believe that all hon. Members recognise their good work, and this is an opportunity to voice our appreciation.
Although we are entirely in agreement on this matter, I feel that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth was perhaps over-optimistic about what had been done in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Of course many measures contained in that Act were good and valuable, and will help in sentencing and in stamping out abuse, but I see those only as a step forward in getting to grips with child abuse. I believe that there are many avenues to be pursued—especially our policy on non-custodial sentencing. It would be wrong and certainly over-simplistic if the House believed that we could slap people in prison and that would be the end of it. After the Cleveland affair, we have enough information to realise that the issue is complex and that there is no simplistic approach to sentencing policy. We must look at each case on its merits, because what might be suitable for one case might not be for others.
The great benefit of the efforts of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to have this debate is that we can place before the country some of the strategic issues in preventing child abuse and neglect. My hon. Friend the


Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) mentioned the teenage chat lines, about which I have great concerns. It worries me that telephone companies can, at phenomenal tariff rates, encourage people to have telephone conversations which are titillating and stimulating in certain ways. Those services are there purely for the purpose of making profit and nothing else. The profit margins are massive, and the consequences of encouraging that kind of service worries me.
I believe that a number of measures in the Criminal Justice Act were positive and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth was right to point them out. The use of live video for children, not when giving preliminary evidence but during trials, must be especially applauded. To be confronted by all the paraphernalia in a court—for instance, people dressed in wigs and gowns and especially to be confronted by the accused—could be traumatic for many children. I welcome the pilot trial that is commencing on a greater scale in the 10 Crown courts and we look forward to the results with interest.
I welcome, too, the sentences of from two to 10 years for the abuse of children under the age of 16 which came into operation in September.
The right of the Attorney-General to send alleged lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal—which is contained in section 36 of the new Act—is also to be welcomed. The recent case presided over by Judge Harold Cassells was an example of a judge failing in his judgment. In fact, there was uproar throughout the country about what he said in court. Frankly, it showed that judges are not perfect people, by any stretch of the imagination. That net to ensure that leniency will not have a deleterious effect is something that the Opposition welcome.
I do not fully understand the ideas of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth about the leniency of the rules of corroboration. I am not sure that that will be as powerful as he suggested. Will the Minister comment on this matter, because I understand that he piloted the Bill through the House? Although I understand that there has been a change, and that a child's sworn evidence has the same status as that of an adult, I am not sure that, in sex cases especially, there is much of a change from the present situation.
We have measures now that will help the child involved in court processes. Some of the measures in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provide a wider range of sentences which the court may apply in very serious cases. However, I believe that we need to go further. The NSPCC has made some suggestions, and I shall put a few of them briefly to the House. It commented on the use of video recordings in child sex abuse cases. Those are the video recordings which would be associated with preliminary statements. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has spoken out powerfully and often on such recordings. I have listened carefully, and I believe that we will all benefit from the study that Judge Pigot is presently carrying out. Although videos have now been accepted in principle, I believe that the extension needs to be based on sound advice and evidence, which I hope Judge Pigot's review will provide.
The notion of improving training for the magistracy, for lay benches and for the judiciary will help children. The NSPCC feels that many people in such positions do not understand the full effect of the court process on children and that it finds, for example, tax evasion cases, and,

perhaps, criminal cases more interesting than child abuse cases. It has been said that their priorities are not as great as they could be.
The work of the NSPCC suggests that, when a sentence has been passed, that can be helpful to a child, because, if a person is behind bars, that child is safe from further abuse. Members of a family may dispute what a child has said, and that child may feel isolated. Of course, if somebody is convicted of that sort of crime, it means that the other members of the family could support the child, because they know that the person who was abusing the child has been convicted. That is a beneficial effect of such convictions.
If someone is convicted, a child can also be reassured that he or she is not the guilty party. Although children may be abused, they often love their parents and feel guilty about disclosing their parents' activities. Children can consider such disclosures disloyal and they can cause them great difficulties. It is ironic that the break-up of a family can, in many respects, be more traumatic than the abuse encountered by a child. Of course, that varies from case to case, as it is a complex issue, but often there is pressure on a child to do what he or she can to keep a family from breaking up.
The NSPCC believes—a belief shared by many people —that custodial sentences may not act as a deterrent. This is an emotional issue, and we must consider it carefully. When an abuser within a family is discovered, the reaction is often, "Lock that person up. Never let them see the light of day again." My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, in her excellent speech, pointed out, however, that some people become addicted to the sexual abuse of children. If someone is put behind bars and then allowed out at some time in the future, that does not necessarily solve the problem. Often, all they do is come out of prison to abuse again.
When custodial or non-custodial sentences are imposed, it is extremely important that people receive the right kind of therapy and treatment to break the cycle of abuse that can occur within families. Without such therapy, the chances of recidivism are exceedingly high. I congratulate the Government on introducing measures that we are delighted to support, but we must ensure that the pulic do not believe that the Act is all about locking people up. That would be misleading. We must ensure that we deal with this matter properly.
I should like to refer the House to the views of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss—the House will be aware that she headed the inquiry at Cleveland—which were expressed in The Independent on 24 September. Unfortunately, the article carried the alarming title:
Sex abuse fathers could stay at home, judge says".
I have a lot of time for The Independent, and it is a great pity that it should treat this matter in such an alarmist manner. In the article, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss called for
radical new approaches to sentencing child sex abusers to prevent children becoming double victims.
She said:
Alternatives to prison had to be explored to spare children's agonies of guilt. In Cleveland, many children felt that by disclosing abuse they were responsible for splitting up their own families … Even in cases of incest, where a father admitted the offence and was genuinely repentant, probation or therapy might be considered as an alternative to prison.
Where a father was genuinely sorry for what he had done, the option of probation or therapy might prompt him to admit the offence and spare the child the further agony of a court appearance. In some cases, if the protection of the child


could be ensured, the father might even be able to stay with the family … 'I do not mean that violent offenders should be let off.'
It is important to stress that we are not talking about violent offenders. Lord Justice Butler-Sloss said:
'we ought at least to look at the different approaches which might be more beneficial for the child and family.
It is very interesting to note that the article also reported that the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Colin Sampson, recently said at a conference that there had to be
'very special circumstances' before the police would feel happy that a child abuser might return home. 'There is always the worry that the offence might be repeated.
However, he went on to say that the police were not a hard-line organisation and added:
'alternatives to prison have always to be considered. Each case has to be looked at on its merits. If the merits of the case indicate there is better treatment than prison, I would be all for it.'
It is worth putting that long quote on the record because it demonstrates that there are people who believe that we must carefully consider each case to ensure that the sentence imposed is correct.

Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. Gentleman referred to Cleveland. How would he and my hon. Friend the Minister react to the letter that I received this morning from the Rev. Michael Wright, who has helped all the families whose children have been taken away from them? He told me that two girls and a boy had been taken from a family, in which the boy was the baby of the family. There was no question of sexual abuse, and the two girls have been returned to their family. The parents want their son back, but he is so confused about who his parents are that there is now a court application being made for the child to be adopted by his foster parents. The natural parents are desperately upset.

Mr. Randall: That is very interesting. Although it does not fit in with the logic of my argument, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made his point. The incident he has described is a terrific tragedy, and it shows that we must carefully consider how we deal with abuse and suspected abuse cases.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles that it is staggering that we have not had an opportunity to debate the Butler-Sloss report. I know that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), together with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), has played a significant part in the Cleveland case; I congratulate them both on their efforts. The example that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh quoted illustrates the difficulties and tragedies that can ensue from such cases.
I am aware that other hon. Members wish to participate, so I shall be brief. In common with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), however, I should like to quote one or two statistics about the scale of the problem. I refer to the article that appeared in The Guardian on 16 June 1988 under the headline:
Legal changes sought to end evil in the home".
The article is based on the NSPCC report, which called on the Government to legislate so that the child abuser, not the victim, could be removed from the family home, without necessarily going to prison.
We need to debate that idea. In child abuse cases, the child is often taken into care while the abuser remains at home. I am not sure that that is necessarily the right way

to do things. Of course, cases vary and we cannot be too dogmatic, but I am sympathetic to the NSPCC director's comments.
In the report, the NSPCC spoke of many cases not coming to court because the evidence was inadmissible and because it was too traumatic for the child to give evidence in person. But some of the statistics are frightening:
The NSPCC analysis offers a revealing profile of the typical child abuse case.
Fewer than 40 per cent. of victims were actually living with both natural parents when abused. About a quarter lived with their natural mother and a stepfather or boy friend. Another quarter lived only with their mother.
Stepfathers and boy friends were implicated in 19 per cent. of injury cases and a quarter of sex abuse cases. Natural fathers were implicated in a third of sex abuse cases, compared with 3 per cent. of mothers.
So natural fathers were involved to a greater extent than boy friends or stepfathers.
The average age of registered victims of all forms of abuse was six years and 10 months, which is horrific. The average age of sexually abused children was nine years and eight months. The article went on to say that marital problems were the most common cause of abuse, followed by unemployment.
A number of measures, including some in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, have been introduced, many of which we support, but we feel that we must go further than introducing custodial sentences and bring in therapeutic work under a statutory obligation. These services are patchy throughout the country. It is important that the Government should compel prison authorities and others to provide such services.
For the future, we need a range of sentences and services to ensure that those who are sentenced return to life in a more normal and natural way. These measures are desperately important, and the list of what we should like to do is almost endless. Today, both sides of the House have supported the motion introduced by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, whose initiative we welcome.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) on his initiative in bringing forward this important subject for debate. I want to refer briefly to what the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said. I greatly respect her experience. My own long experience in dealing with children as schoolmaster and teacher and in clubs and so on tells me that what often matters most in a person, be he amateur or professional, is motivation.
For many years in this country children's orphanages were run by gifted amateurs from religious orders. The nuns and monks were highly motivated to do the job, but they were removed after the war from this vocation and professionals were put in to do the job. As a result there is often less love around for the children: the motivation is not the same. I think that children have suffered as a result.
I believe that sound marriage gives children the best hope of not being molested or abused. It is incredible that any adult can lay into a child in the way that some of them do. I came across a case only last week in which a man of 6 ft 4 in had smashed into a four-year-old child with all his


considerable force. That is both unbelievable and heartbreaking. Clearly adults who behave like that suffer from some sort of inadequacy.
The national honorary secretary of Family and Youth Concern wrote to me this morning as follows:
I understand that the government is mounting a campaign for more child care facilities to enable more women to join the labour force. In Sweden where the state assumes responsibility for the care of children from an early age there are serious problems. One study showed that half the nation's seven-year olds suffer from harmful stress. Teenage rioting is a recurring problem. 25,000 children are in state custody (12,000 having been forceably removed from their parents) compared with a sum total of 1,500 in other Nordic countries. Over 125 children commit suicide each year. Among explanations for these problems, the one most cited is the decline of parental supervision in a country where most parents work full-time.
The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts visited Washington earlier this year to observe the education of the under-fives. It was amazing to discover that 57 per cent. of parents with children who were one year old or younger both worked full time, and that their children went into creche or other facilities from the age of two weeks. Of course, I understand that there is often a social or financial need for both parents to work, but when they do it is imperative that society provide alternative facilities and care for children which will provide them with substitute parental love. If that does not happen, we build up much trouble for ourselves.
There is a great need to strengthen the family. Children in families are rarely battered, although, as hon. Members said, they can be abused. That is a matter for great concern. The marriage commitment strengthens the parental bond between men and women to whom children are born, and the children benefit greatly from that—

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No. I am anxious to be brief.
The taxation of man and wife on the same basis as that for unmarried people living together is welcome and should go further.
I also welcome the Children Bill, which is being debated in another place. However, I am worried about an amendment to it which will be debated this week and which would ban the odd parental smack of a child. It is quite absurd to try to legislate on parents' physical control of their children, which is occasionally necessary. My three children are now 18, 17 and 13 and my wife told me yesterday that she has issued three smacks in their lives. I do not know who got what, but it happened because she was exasperated—and on each occasion it cleared the air. She felt better, the children felt better, and everything was all right—[Interruption.] I have never battered my wife.
To move to the position in Sweden, where children are told from the age of five that they should report it to the police if they are smacked by their parents, would be an unwarranted intrusion into family life and would help no one. It would divide children from their parents, which is the worst thing that one could do. The loving bond between parent and child should not be violated. If a parent loves his child, he will not wish to batter him, and if the child loves his parent, he will do what the parent wants him to do in his own interests. Any law that encourages the reporting of chastisement of a child would

be highly divisive and must be resisted at all costs. I hope that this week the House of Lords will throw out the suggestion for all time.
School security is essential. When I was running a school with 2,200 pupils, I was always there at 8 am, especially on cold mornings, to ensure that the school was open so that children who wanted to come in had a warm atmosphere in which they could be comfortable, sit down and read or even take part in some recreation with their friends in the games room. That gave children a sense of security and was part of the reason why some schools decided to extend their school day. It gave children the extra security that they could not get at home because both their parents were working.
I am extremely anxious about the security of children in some schools. Sadly, on 13 October, in my constituency, an eight-year-old child was molested by an intruder in a school lavatory. That should not happen anywhere. The local authority spends only £15,000 a year on school security throughout the borough. That cash must be spread over many schools, and it is an inadequate sum. In that case, there were four schools for young children on the same site, but the council failed to put high railings round each school so that they could be secure.
Also, head teachers or deputy heads should always be walking the school. I always did that as a teacher, no matter how junior I was. When I was a head teacher, I did it because I always found children who should be at their lessons walking about the school and I could do something about them. By walking the school, a head teacher could find any intruders and deal with them. The fencing of Wood End school in Northolt was promised by Christmas, but it has not happened. I hope that the local authority will get its act together and fence the school properly early in the new year. It is essential to protect those little children from child molesters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said, the welfare of the child is paramount. Molesters must be kept off council estates. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that child molesters can rarely be cured. Sadly, recividism among child molesters is very high. Two or three years ago in my constituency, a child molester who had been in Broadmoor for several years was released and, because there was inadequate liaison among the police, the prison authorities and the local authorities, he was allocated accommodation on a council estate next door to a flat in which some small children lived. It was no time before he was giving them sweets, and then £1 or £5 to lie on his bed. To the consternation of us all, he molested two children there. That should not have occurred. I hope that in future there will be more co-operation among the police, local authorities, schools and all concerned with children. Only if everyone pulls together shall we obtain the proper protection that children so urgently require.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I am broadly in favour of the motion introduced by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), but it does not distinguish between sexual abuse and other types of deliberate physical maltreatment. Although the former occurs across the social spectrum, the latter is prevalent in deprived families. Neither type of abuse can be justified,


but the number of battered children would probably be reduced more by the reversal of some social security cuts than by the introduction of extreme punishments.
For every type of child abuse, the justifiable outrage of decent citizens tends to result in a clamour for tougher sentences. We are all worried by the fact that some judgments are only a slap on the wrist, rather than an expression of moral outrage. The judiciary cannot be seen to condone child abuse. Unfortunately, the vast majority of judges are white, male and middle-aged or elderly. Sometimes they seem to be more worried about the protection of property than about assaults on the person —even those committed against innocent children and, especially, babies.
The Social and Liberal Democrats believe that the extension of family courts would help in that direction. We support the section of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 that deals with evidence given by children. But we should not fall into the naive belief that legal arrangements will cure the cancer. Like sadistic murders, the abuse of children is sometimes committed by mentally sick people, and legal sanctions would not restrain them. Tougher punishments may be satisfying for some, but they delude us into thinking that the problem is being tackled when it is not.
Much of the terrifying amount of child abuse that now occurs, and perhaps has been occurring for many years, is committed by so-called ordinary people. The number of crimes may be reduced by more education of parents about child development. In some circumstances, children with disabilities are especially at risk. If their parents were taught to accept their difficulties, there might be less tension in some households. Moreover, the social services should pay greater attention when a stressful family is faced with a sudden crisis that could act as a trigger to child abuse. I have spoken to many directors of social services. The director in Southport, who also represents Sefton authority, has said many times that his budget is too restricted to allow him to deal with all the matters that he would wish.
I had the honour of meeting and talking to a constituent, Mr. Charles Oxley—the gentleman is now deceased—who was the main opponent of paedophile organisations. Although such organisations have been made illegal in Britain, diaries are still sold here which advertise international paedophile organisations. Some abusers in Britain use the fact that those diaries are on sale as an excuse for their activities, saying that it cannot be wrong as long as such material is available. I believe that it is wrong and that the diaries should be banned. I hope that the Minister will examine the matter.
I should like to praise the Government for at last conducting a national survey into child abuse. At last, the scale of the problem should become clearer. However, I am disappointed that that research appears only to cover England. Is there no child abuse in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland?
I also welcome the publication of guidelines for social workers which might help them in what can undoubtedly be very difficult situations. However, unfortunately, human judgment is still crucial and mistakes are therefore possible. The risk could be reduced if the social services were not so badly funded and understaffed.

Clearly, the Government must act to protect children. I believe that they will do so through the Children Bill, which will certainly have my support and that of my party.

Mr. David Wilshire: I wish to speak in this debate for two simple reasons, first, to stress how little we know about child abuse and, secondly, to plead with the House to take one specific aspect of child abuse a great deal more seriously that it has been taken in the past.
Abusing children is so self-evidently abhorrent and wishing to protect children is so self-evidently good that there is a real danger of jumping to conclusions without too much thought. However, if we are to make any real progress in this matter, we must first take one step back from those instinctive and emotional reactions and take a long, hard look at the facts.
However, if we set out to look at the facts, we quickly make a rather nasty discovery—that very few facts are available. Many of the key issues have yet to be researched. One of the infrequently quoted parts of the Cleveland inquiry report states on page 245:
There are some issues of importance upon which we did not receive evidence and which we have not addressed. These include specifically the nature of abusers and the reasons for sexual abuse of children; the effectiveness and appropriateness of the strategies used once the problem has been identified; and the response of society and the agencies to those who abuse.
That is a pretty fundamental list of issues and, until it is addressed, we shall continue to know next to nothing about who the abusers are and why they do it, or about the worth of the way in which we are currently responding.
Clearly, the Government have an important role to play in such research. They need to concentrate on more than the abusers and the abuse. They also need to focus on the abused children, the effects of that abuse on the children, how such children can be helped and how families can be steered away from abuse.
The Government can also help in other ways, first, by standardising the definitions of abuse, which are many and varied, and, secondly, by compulsorily requiring reports to be sent to the Department of Health on all matters concerning abuse. Only then will reliable statistics be available and, until then, we can only guess how much abuse is taking place.
We must do a great deal of research, but we must also abandon some familiar preconceptions. For example, we must give up the idea that child abuse is carried out by dirty old men in raincoats on street corners. The Cleveland inquiry report states on page 243:
We have learned during the Inquiry that sexual abuse occurs in children of all ages, including the very young, to boys as well as girls, in all classes of society and frequently within the privacy of the family.
By way of example, we must give up the idea that child physical abuse is caused simply by poverty and/or unemployment. I quote from a survey by Vallender and Fogelman, published this year, about existing knowledge on the subject. It states:
One misconception is that we are all potential batterers and that the main causes are depression and poverty. In fact, most parents who violently assault their children are young, immature, ill-educated, disorganised and aggressive; many of the fathers involved have criminal records. Their incomes are similar to those of non-battering families, but they organise their finances badly.
Besides doing more research, we must abandon those preconceived notions and be clear in our minds about the


ultimate objective of our efforts. It is not simply the protection of children; it is not even the conviction and punishment of offenders. It is the prevention of abuse and, in that context, it is easy to forget that protection and prevention are not necessarily the same thing.
What can we do to prevent child abuse? First, society must take early action rather than wait and then indulge in crisis intervention. Secondly, we must promote children's welfare within the family unit rather than simply stepping in and removing children from their parents. Thirdly, when the removal of a child has become inevitable, we must make certain that there has been adequate parental change before that child is returned to the family.
How does the Children Bill fit in with this analysis? It will improve the framework and help professionals operate in a much clearer environment, but legislation alone is not enough. Society also has a part to play. We should ask ourselves three basic questions about our current values and standards. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked, should we be worried about recent trends in family life? Secondly, does the law's view of children as possessions and chattels, rather than as whole people, make abuse more likely? Thirdly, does the daily diet of sex and violence in the media, particularly on television, make child abuse seem more normal?
I have concentrated so far on child abuse in the family, where most abuse takes place, but I want to say a few words about child abuse outside the family, particularly about the abuse in the name of religion. I do so because many people are all too ready to laugh this off as unimportant, but it is not; it happens. It is evil and those who are involved must he tracked down and dealt with. Those who systematically and deliberately abuse children for their own depraved ends must expect no sympathy from this House, the nation or from people anywhere.
Let me give two examples of what I have in mind. First, there is a cult known as the Children of God. Its members are followers of a defrocked Christian minister, David Berg, and they give everything in the Bible a sexual meaning. Thus,
I will make you fishers of men
becomes a call for teenage girls and young women to become prostitutes to recruit new members. In taped sermons in my possession, Berg preaches that there is a new commandment, "Thou shalt have sex", starting as a young child. We do not need to go further than a shopping mall in my constituency to meet members of that organisation.
My second example is satanism. All too often, its mention produces giggles and images of witches on broomsticks, but satanism is not the same thing as witchcraft. It is about the ritual mutilation and torture of people, particularly children, human and animal sacrifice and cannibalism. I shall quote from an article in Style magazine, published in January of this year, which states:
Sam Hoyer's nightmare began at birth. Sam spent the first 16 years of her life in an … orphanage in New England … When Sam was 9 years old, cult leaders designated her and a handful of other children as candidates for the role of high priestess … Testing the children's powers, the religious impostors strapped six of the 'candidates' to crosses and burned them. Sam alone survived … As part of her grooming, Sam was required to watch other children being sacrificed; then she was forced to witness and participate in cannibalism.
In case any of my colleagues are tempted to dismiss that report as the exaggerated ramblings of American

journalists, I must tell hon. Members that I have a list of 30 recent satanic murderers who have been brought before United States courts. If any of my colleagues are tempted to believe that those things do not happen here, I must tell them that only 10 days ago one of my local newspapers, the Egham and Staines News, carried a headline stating:
Baby in satanic killing. Throat cut by coven members.
I hope that I have said enough to prove that cults do not consist of eccentric people who wear black robes and funny pointed hats. All too often they involve the deliberate abuse of children and young people. We cannot afford to laugh cults off. The time has now come to take them much more seriously than we have in the past. We must warn the public about them and the real dangers that they represent. We must act against the organisers of such depravity and cruelty.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): We have had an excellent debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) and all hon. Members have joined in congratulating him on presenting the motion and on the way in which he conducted himself while doing so. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) spoke from the Labour Front Bench and that he was able to join in the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth was right to refer to the need for deterrence and the importance of deterring, punishing and, sometimes inevitably, alas, simply keeping people off the streets and away from possible temptation. My hon. Friend, like others today, mentioned the importance of prevention. A policy of deterrence and punishment must go hand in hand with a policy of prevention. There is all-party agreement on that approach and much of that approach was marked in my hon. Friend's most interesting speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth did almost as good a job as the excellent civil servants who advise Home Office Ministers in giving us a list of the new penalties that have been introduced for child abuse in the past four years. His list was almost complete and makes it almost otiose for me to take the House through each of the new penalties to which my hon. Friend referred. He was right to say that the penalties are becoming more severe. Everyone in this country, while wishing to reform and repair the damage among those who have committed crime, wants to see child abusers almost more than anyone else—perhaps other than those who commit crimes against women—dealt with by the courts with the maximum possible severity.
I believe that my hon. Friend was also right to draw to our attention, and therefore perhaps to the attention of the media and through it to the attention of those who are tempted to commit crimes against children through sexual or physical assault or by neglect, or a combination of all three, the fact that should those people be caught and convicted after due process in the courts and sent to prison, their lives in prison will be difficult, although not because that is the sentence of the courts or because that is what the House wants. We want people to be sent to prison to be punished. Being sent to prison is the punishment and life in prison should be austere but nothing other than that. Nothing that happens in prison is


part of the punishment of being sent to prison. The punishment is the deprivation of liberty. That is what prison is all about.
None the less, other prisoners are human beings with emotions. As my hon. Friend said in a chilling part of his speech aimed at those who may be tempted to commit child abuse, people who are sentenced for that will be segregated and cut off from much of prison life. Of course they will be protected by the hard-working prison officers who ensure that order is maintained in prisons. They will be protected from violent and verbal abuse as much as possible in the circumstances. However, prison life being as it is, other prisoners feel very strongly about such crimes. Having to be segregated, as child molesters and child offenders sometimes must be, will be an even more disagreeable experience than simply being in prison. Life in prison for those people will become even more of a punishment, and some would say rightly I dare say, than for most people who are imprisoned.
In his list of the punishments available to the courts and other reforms introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth came up with an idea that was totally new to me. He raised the concept of advertising. He suggested that we should take further steps to counter the menace of child abuse, and he proposed that televison advertisements aimed at potential child abusers should be shown with the broadcasters' late-night output.
We must not discount any measures which might be effective. However, I am not sure how far we can take my hon. Friend's idea at the moment. Television advertisements can certainly be very powerful in drawing attention to problems and consequences to change people's behaviour. Advertisements for drink and driving, drugs, AIDS and the Government's campaign on crime prevention are examples of that. As almost all hon. Members today have said, child abuse is an exceptionally complex phenomenon. I do not think that we should underestimate that. We would need to take advice from psychiatrists and others before we were certain that we could devise an advertising campaign which would help to overcome perversion.
Who would see the advertisements? It is perhaps too easy to assume that those who watch certain material late at night necessarily include a high proportion of child abusers. We simply do not know. We do not know enough about the profile of the child abuser. I believe that it is at least as likely that abusers will watch other programmes at other times. We have been resolute in trying to restrain unsuitable material being seen in the home. We hope to introduce new measures to the Broadcasting Standards Council about the standards of taste and decency. We also have a very sound system for classifying videos through the Video Recordings Act 1984 which is doing much to stamp out the most undesirable material. Through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, we recently extended the powers of trading standards officers to enforce the law in that respect. We are not letting things slide in the wrong direction.
I am sad that at least one other hon. Member who has taken a notable interest in this issue, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), did not speak. Perhaps she was observing the old convention that the

Whip should not speak, but should be mute in the Chamber. Happily for us, during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill last summer, the hon. Lady was not remotely mute. From time to time she would nip niftily to the back of the Committee from the Whip's seat and make an impassioned speech, quite often against the Opposition Front Bench. She would then nip back to Whip the troops. That was a tour de force, and I was hoping that we might see something like it this evening.

Mr. Wilshire: What about the Government Whips?

Mr. Patten: Well, a terrible chill went through the Chamber and the nerves tingled down the back of my neck when my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir J. Stradling Thomas) entered the Chamber to take up his one-time accustomed place on the Government Benches as a Whip. He is standing in. Perhaps some terrible horror has struck the Whips' Office. Perhaps they have all been laid low. However, when I entered this House in 1979, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth disciplined me and other new Members with a ferocity unparalled in the Whips' Office.
Let me deal in turn with the speeches made by hon. Members. I hope also for an opportunity to debate an issue with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), when he chooses to intervene.
In a balanced speech, the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) pointed out that often those who abuse were themselves abused when young. It is clear from research undertaken by the Home Office and by work that the prison service has done that many sexual abusers were subject to sexual or violent abuse when they were themselves children. Much good therapeutic work is under way in Her Majesty's prison Grendon Underwood, both to reform and cure, but also simply to understand the motivation of so many child abusers. We are a long way from being able to draw up a satisfactory profile of the average child abuser, if there is such a thing. Nevertheless, several hon. Members have made a good attempt at doing so this afternoon, and they all point in the right direction.
A second important point made by the hon. Member for Eccles concerned the worrying report—which was new to me—that perhaps child-lines are open to abuse through the British Telecom and Mercury networks. I was not aware of that, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health was on the Front Bench when the hon. Lady made her remarks, and I know that he will give them the characteristic care and attention that he gave to matters of defence procurement for which he was responsible until the end of last week—[Interruption.] Luckily, I did not hear what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, and I am sure that Hansard, with its characteristic good taste, did not hear it either.
The third important point made by the hon. Member for Eccles concerned access to police records by voluntary organisations that have children in their care from time to time or that help children. She questioned the point of having good records of people who have been child abusers in the past, and who therefore may present a risk to children's future health and welfare, if responsible individuals cannot gain access to such information.
Arrangements are already in place for local authorities, the National Health Service and independent schools to have access to police records. After considerable


negotiations conducted by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, we have reached agreement on three pilot schemes allowing for access to such information by the voluntary sector. There is, first, one national pilot scheme to consider how the matter can be dealt with effectively nationally and, secondly, two local schemes—at least one of which will be in the west midlands.
Those negotiations have been protracted and difficult, not because of lack of good will by either the voluntary sector or the Home Office but because there are so many voluntary groups involved in the care of children, or who may be involved, at any one time. Working out how they can get the best route into police records but within the bounds of propriety has not been an easy task. Those pilot schemes are in detailed planning and we intend bringing them into effect in the summer of 1989.

Dame Jill Knight: In the light of efforts made some time ago in respect of access to police records, can my hon. Friend say whether, before a person is put in charge of a local authority children's home, the question of a police record will invariably be checked?

Mr. Patten: That should always be the case, and we hope to extend that provision to the voluntary sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr Sims) raised several important points. He, like my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), is concerned about the extent of child abuse and wishes to know how far it has gone. The Department of Health, in consultation with the Home Office, is now considering establishing research into the characteristics and circumstances of child abusers. We hope to proceed with that as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst spoke of the NSPCC, with which he has long had a link. We value his work, as we do that of Dr. Alan Gilmour, the society's director, who, alas, will shortly retire. Dr. Gilmour is tireless in pursuing Ministers. He frequently pursued me when I was in the then Department of Health and Social Security, and the other day he winkled me out in the Home Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst referred also to putting the child first. He moved on to the difficult territory of those occasions when the police, social workers and others decide between them not only that a criminal charge will not stick but, even if it would, it is not in the child's best interest to bring a prosecution. Such are fantastically difficult decisions for those in the caring agencies and in the police to take. Rather like those life and death decisions that physicians and surgeons in hospitals must sometimes take about when a course of treatment should be terminated, decisions taken privately by the police and social workers are excellent decisions, when they work. However, when they go wrong—as sometimes, alas, they do—they go horribly wrong, publicly and in the glare of publicity. It is not an easy course for anyone to take.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to raise the question of the social workers' role in the context of my own constituency. I understand that each year there is a loss of about 900 social workers throughout the United Kingdom. In the context of the problems associated with child abuse, having more professionally trained social workers available must clearly be one of the resource approaches to

dealing with a terrible problem. What proposals has the Minister for increasing the number of local authority social workers? My constituency, because it is an outer London borough, has difficulty in attracting sufficient numbers of social workers as it cannot offer inner London weighting.

Mr. Patten: That matter continually exercises the Department of Health, as it will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who was in his place on the Government Front Bench earlier. I shall ensure that the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is brought to my hon. Friend's attention.
In an interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) drew attention to what happens when there is family breakdown, and how it alone may be not the cause of abuse—because no single factor is usually the cause—but how an unstable family structure can provide the setting for it. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend in his remarks about the importance of the family and the help that we must always give the family.
My hon. Friend referred also to the problems sometimes facing working mothers. Forty three per cent. of the country's work force are women. We are told by demographers—although they are rather a rum lot, and I am not sure that they can predict the future any more than psephologists can predict the outcome of elections—that, by 1995, about 80 per cent. of all new entrants into the labour market will, to quote from something I recently read, have to be women if the jobs are to be filled. That must mean increasing help for families. It must come from employers first and foremost, and not from the state.
I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with others responsible for ensuring equal opportunities, do not wish to see a set-up of state-run creches. We are totally opposed to that. However, we would like to promote and to see in the next few years, in close consultation with employers—because there is no collision necessarily between caring and a career—good local provision by the private sector and voluntary organisations that will give the small-scale framework for child care, and provide—to paraphrase my hon. Friend's words—that surrogate family style and love and support during the hours when a mother is at work. That, I believe, is the right framework for the development of child care rather than larger scale provision.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) raised an important point about paedophiles, drawing to our attention the existence of diaries providing addresses internationally and the possibility of their encouraging paedophiles. If any such diaries have been sent to him by those who have complained, I urge the hon. Gentleman to make them available to the police and the prosecuting authorities. I recently held a talk with justice Ministers in other European countries, and we are determined between us to do all that we can to stamp out this vile abuse.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House expresses its disgust and alarm at the spread of child abuse throughout the United Kingdom; welcomes the provisions contained within the Criminal Justice Act 1988 designed to protect children and to deter potential child abusers; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the range of sentences available to the courts are regularly reviewed, are sufficient to enable the courts to deal effectively with those who commit offences against children, and strong enough to serve as a deterrent to those who may act towards a child in an unnatural way.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 22nd December do adjourn until Tuesday 10th January.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

7 pm

Sir Peter Emery: Before we divide on the motion—and I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, with the late Sir Peter Mills, I once divided the House to urge its Members to stay longer at work—

Mr. Michael Latham: I assure my hon. Friend that Sir Peter Mills is not dead.

Sir Peter Emery: He is still very much with us, I am glad to say. He is a past Member of Parliament. I did not refer to him by his constituency because he no longer has a constituency, but he and I divided the House on this motion some time ago.
I want to discuss four matters relating to eggs. First, however, I wish to put to my right hon. Friend a point concerning procedure. Today we have a good deal of private Members' time. We have this debate, allowing hon. Members to raise particular matters, and afterwards we have the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. Traditionally, in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate Back Benchers may raise any constituency matter that they wish to be brought to the attention of Ministers. There are two, three or sometimes four such debates each year, giving Back Benchers a specific opportunity to raise such matters.
Because of the way in which the Government have arranged today's business, the Consolidated Fund Bill debate may not be reached until 10 pm. Four hours today, but on an ordinary day it would have been six hours, of time in which Back Benchers might normally expect to be able to make constituency points have been taken away. The Government may reply that there are precedents: indeed, since 1982 I am afraid that it has been the exception rather than the rule for the Consolidated Fund Bill debate to start in prime time, at 3.30 or 4.30 pm, after Question Time or statements. The Government are depriving Back Benchers of rare and much-wanted time for debate. Many Back Benchers do not wish the debate to start at 10 pm.
It is true that we have allowed for a limitation on the debate so that instead of running to any hour it must finish at 9 am, but I think that the Government should consider beginning it at the start of business and letting it run its course. Back-Bench time is slim enough as it is, and it should not be eaten away, even for the convenience of the Front Bench. Perhaps the Front Bench is considering the majority of hon. Members: if the debate had begun at the start of today's business perhaps we would not have been able to adjourn for the Christmas recess until Friday, rather than Thursday. Regardless of what is convenient for the majority, however, the Leader of the House has a responsibility to the minority, who have the right to make constituency points at prime time and with full time for the Consolidated Fund Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the two Front Benches will consider that in due course.

Mr. John Greenway: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. May I add that today we have had three and a half hours of private Members' motions, and an hour and a half has been taken up with ministerial statements?

Sir Peter Emery: That reinforces my point.
As the House will know, I have been massively concerned with the egg problem ever since it began. I very much welcomed the statement today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He made his statement on behalf of the Government as both Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food, and did so extremely well. Nevertheless, a number of questions could not be put to him. Because of limited time, I was not called. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider my comments, or ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to do so.
First, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House do what he can to hasten the consideration of the Select Committee? The Government have decided that they do not wish to hold an inquiry, and I am pleased that they are placing the responsibility with a Select Committee, which I consider is an appropriate way of conducting an inquiry. Haste is needed, however. Whether we like it or not, there is still considerable concern.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said today that there was a very slight chance of contracting salmonella from eggs, and that the level of salmonella in breeding and laying flocks was very low. Against that we have the reports by The Guardian and the BBC, quoting statements by Professor Lacey which seem to represent only his personal view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) the ex-Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, has not withdrawn the statement that she made on television. Those who saw her on television know that her remarks were made off the cuff, and they certainly did not fit in with the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon that he and the Health Ministers agreed all statements on salmonella and eggs. There was certainly no agreement on the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. That she has not withdrawn that statement when she is palpably incorrect is a tragedy—a tragedy that has created a problem on which we are having to spend a vast amount of taxpayers' money.
One of my hon. Friends asked whether a precedent was being set. I do not believe that it is. I hope very much that what caused the tragedy was the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South, and we do not expect Ministers' statements to cause such problems in future. There is, of course, every reason for the Government to take the financial action that they are having to take.

Mr. Robert Adley: My hon. Friend is, I am sure, aware that Professor Lacey has a long record of attacking the battery hen industry and is simply using the current problem to promote his own ideas. Does my hon. Friend agree that the advertising, which, in my constituency, has annoyed egg producers as much as the problem itself, needs urgently to be rethought? If we are to encourage people to eat eggs it is essential to produce a short, sharp, simple message, not a full-page advertisement that is very verbose and boring. Does my hon. Friend agree that a simple phrase is needed that will both encourage people to eat eggs and play on the British public's sympathy for animal welfare? Would not the slogan "Save a hen—eat an egg" be much more useful than long advertisements?

Sir Peter Emery: I am not one for sloganising on the Floor of the House. However, I accept what my hon. Friend has said. The advertising campaign has not had the terse, direct impact that most advertising campaigns set out to achieve. I was a Minister during the coal crisis. We hit on a simple slogan. It was SOS, or "Switch Off Something". By jove, that made people save electricity.
May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House also to consider the problems that the secondary and tertiary industries involved in egg production are now facing. Their problems were not mentioned in the Government statement. A number of major companies in Devon and Dorset are supplying day-old chicks—in some cases 3 million a year. Nothing is to be done for them, but the whole of their business has been put at risk. Bankruptcy faces them, just as it faces the egg producer. Similarly, those who supply feed to egg producers have suffered considerable cuts in their business. It is wrong that they should be left out in the cold. I ask my right hon. Friend to refer this matter to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Will my right hon. Friend also consider what is to happen after the four-week period? The statement applies to four weeks only. I hope that the problem will be solved in four weeks. Every hon. Member will be delighted if it is, but it is unlikely that it will be. The Government must consider, therefore, what they intend to do if the situation is still critical after that period.
What is even more important than all the matters that I have so far raised is the long-term future of egg production. The Minister said that salmonella in breeding and laying flocks is very low. However, some flocks have undoubtedly been affected by salmonella for some time. The Minister should therefore consider what should be done about the affected flocks. Would it not be much better to cull entirely the affected flocks rather than to reduce production by 10 per cent. overall, which would mean that flocks that are not infected with salmonella are also culled? It would be much better to attack directly the main problem. It may not be possible to do so at short notice, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will approach the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and ask him to take positive action.
Only when the public are sure that both the long-term and the short-term problems have been solved will their confidence in eggs be restored. Only then will the cheapest and best form of consuming protein—the consumption of hens' eggs—be acceptable to the country at large. That is what everybody wants and we ought to be working towards that end. We shall achieve it only if we deal with the long-term as well as the short-term problems.
I hope that other hon. Members will support my views and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to reassure us. If he can do so, I shall not need to divide the House.

Mr. Alfred Morris: There is, of course, scant prospect of debating time for any of the issues that will be raised with the Leader of the House this evening, but there are two issues about which there should most certainly be oral ministerial statements before the House rises on Thursday.
I refer, first, to the Department of Social Security's proposal to scrap board and lodging payments for people

who live in hostels run by voluntary organisations. It is a proposal that would have a catastrophic effect on thousands of disabled people and, among others, women and children who have fled from violence and now live in hostels run by voluntary organisations such as MENCAP, MIND and Women's Aid.
The Government's proposal, which has angered Members of Parliament of all parties, including the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) who has such a distinguished record of service in this field, is to substitute income support and housing benefit for the board and lodging payments now made to the residents of these hostels. If the proposal goes through, many residents will lose nearly £30 a week, and no one between 16 and 60 will have enough money to pay the current hostel charge of £70 a week. In consequence, 1,750 of the hostels will close at a stroke and most of the people who live in them will have nowhere to go. Many will have to join the growing ranks of the pavement poor whose living conditions on the streets of some of our major cities, as I know well as a trustee of Crisis at Christmas, are a total disgrace to this country.
In addition to the human devastation that the closures will cause, the Government's so-called "community care" programme for people with special needs, which is already in tatters, will be further exposed as a cruel sham.
The proposal is bitterly condemned by more than a score of Britain's most widely-respected and best-known voluntary organisations. It is self-defeating as well as inhumane, since ultimately many of its victims will find themselves in hospitals and other institutions at far higher cost to the taxpayer than that of the board and lodging payments they now receive.
I call most urgently on the Secretary of State for Social Security to relieve the anxieties of thousands of the most needful people in Britain today by withdrawing this odious proposal forthwith and I hope that, if the Leader of the House cannot offer us any assurance about it tonight, there will be a ministerial statement before the House raises for the recess.
The second issue on which I seek a ministerial statement before Thursday concerns the problems and needs of disabled people more generally. This Government came to power with a promise to "single out" disabled people for special help, but even people with the most severe disabilities now complain that instead they have been singled out for special hardship. More than half of all recipients of the severe disablement allowance, for which a claimant has to be over 80 per cent. disabled, have been forced on to means-tested benefits and are living on the breadline.
According to the Disability Alliance which represents over 100 voluntary organisations of and for disabled people, there were more than 1 million disabled losers from the social security cuts inflicted on 11 April. Yet £1·9 million went in tax cuts to the richest 1 per cent. of taxpayers in this year's Budget alone.
The Government now have the results of two major new surveys of Britain's disabled population from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The first, published in September, shows that there are now 6·2 million disabled adults in great Britain, which is double the figure given in the OPCS's previous survey on the prevalence of disability in 1971.
The second new survey, on the financial circumstances of Britain's disabled population, published in November,


shows that most of them live in preventable poverty. More than 4 million disabled people find it hard to make ends meet. Now that the Government know the number and needs of disabled people, there is no excuse for ministerial inaction and, as a first step, they must urgently reverse the cuts inflicted on 11 April.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), then Minister responsible for disabled people and now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said in March 1987 that the OPCS's findings, when they were published, would
… provide the evidence for a comprehensive review of benefits for long-term sick and disabled people.
Honouring that pledge will involve higher spending and the right hon. Gentleman is now in the best possible Cabinet seat to tell the Prime Minister that the Government cannot help double the number of people on which current policies are based without spending more money.
The OPCS's previous survey in 1971, commissioned by a Labour Government, led to the introduction of the attendance allowance, the mobility allowance, the invalid care allowance and the non-contributory invalidity pension; to the indexing of benefits to the higher of the annual increases in prices and earnings; and to the earnings-related supplement to invalidity pensions. There were unprecedented increases in cash benefits and services for disabled people and that is our credential for demanding action now on the OPCS's reports.
Again, the Government have received from the Social Security Advisory Committee the important recent report entitled "Benefits for Disabled People: A Strategy for Change" which also deserves an urgent and positive ministerial response. Every opinion survey shows that the public want more help to be given. The resources are available. Only distorted priorities stand in the way of helping the poorest disabled people to live fuller and more fulfilling lives.
Local authorities face an even more critical challenge than the Government arising from the OPCS's reports. As of now, they have identified only 1·25 million of the disabled people who are entitled to services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act which provides for home helps, home adaptations, telephones for the housebound and a wide range of other help. The vast majority of the 6·2 million people now shown by the OPCS to be disabled are entitled to help under the Act, but they will not get it unless the Government make more money available to councils. Council leaders of all political persuasions tell me and the Government that they now have to choose not only which of their discretionary powers to use under the Act, but even which of their legal duties to fulfil. They are also deeply concerned about the scandalous delay, more than two years after its enactment, in giving full effect to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 which my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), with help from among others the then Minister for Health, piloted to the statute book with such humane concern.
Council leaders complained, even before the OPCS's survey on prevalence was published in September, about being turned into lawbreakers in regard to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Yet we know that they are discharging their legal duties to only one fifth of the

disabled people in need of services. While claiming to have increased benefits, the Government repeatedly have cut back the cash benefits for which we legislated. The link with earnings was scrapped at a cost of £14.40 a week to pensioner couples among whom the elderly disabled often suffer most hardship. They have to endure the double handicap of disability and deprivation.
Other major benefits we introduced were savaged by last April's cuts. Ministers may point to the mobility allowance as an example of a benefit increase under the present Government, but that allowance has gone up in excess of inflation due to my decision, as the then Minister, to link the mobility allowance to rises in motoring costs.
It really is intolerable that we still have had no oral statement to the House as to the Government's reaction to the two reports from the OPCS or to the Social Security Advisory Committee's report. Urgency is essential in the view of every major organisation of and for disabled people. I hope that the Leader of the House will give them some seasonal cheer tonight when he replies to the debate.

Sir Barney Hayhoe: I shall not take up the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about disability and the action that the Government have taken except his specific reference to me about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. He will recall that I made it clear on many occasions during the passage of that Bill that the various provisions would not be implemented until the Government found the necessary resources. It was understood by the sponsors of the Bill that there would be no immediate implementation of its important provisions. I certainly join him in hoping that those provisions which still need to be implemented will be implemented at the earliest moment that the Government feel able to devote the necessary resources and when local government, which is very involved in the matter, can join them in that decision.
The dominant theme of Christmastide is peace on earth. I warmly congratulate all those responsible for making this Christmas more hopeful for genuine lasting peace than anyone could have dared hope 12 months ago, and particularly for the recent developments in and around the centre of Christendom—Jerusalem. Particular congratulations should be directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on their speedy and constructive response to Mr. Arafat's recent speech to the United Nations in Geneva. I imagine that all hon. Members will pray that that process will now continue so that peace can come to that troubled part of the world.
I wish to make four brief points, two on national issues and two on issues of local concern. First, I very much regret that child benefit is not included in tomorrow's uprating order for social security benefits. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and others will appreciate that our parliamentary procedures prevent a specific vote tomorrow on child benefit. I am sorry that the House should break for the Christmas recess without a clear opportunity being given to those hon. Members like myself who believe that child benefit should have been uprated to express their


belief in the Division Lobbies if necessary. Without entering detailed arguments, I recall that child benefit replaced child tax allowances.
I could imagine the reaction in the House and the country if in his Budget speech this year the Chancellor had said, "I am raising the single person's allowance, I am raising the married man's allowance, I am raising the age allowance, but for the second year running I am leaving child tax allowance unchanged." All hell would have broken loose, and rightly so. I urge the Government to examine the matter again and to carry out fully the pledge in our manifesto at the last election which I understood to mean that this benefit would not be left withering on the vine but would be uprated at least to take account of the rise in the cost of living.
My second subject is also linked with Christmas, when spending and domestic demand tend to rise. Already there are signs that higher interest rates are reducing demand, as the Chancellor intended. I hope that higher interest rates will also encourage savings—the other side of that coin that must always be remembered. I wish that the Government would find ways of discouraging the aggressive marketing of credit, especially to young people, and, at the same time, give a boost and impetus to savings in addition to the rise in interest rates.
I appreciate that housing-linked borrowing is the main factor in the increase in domestic credit, but the aggressive selling of credit cards, high street credit and loans fosters a mood of spend, spend, spend when what the nation requires now is a philosophy of save, save, save. Surely Treasury Ministers and officials can devise ways of achieving the latter. I am not seeking a return to physical controls on credit, or anything like that, but surely the Treasury can devise ways of encouraging responsible attitudes and discouraging the aggressive marketing of money.
Thirdly, many of my constituents are deeply unhappy that Parliament should rise for its Christmas recess while the most unwelcome and potentially damaging proposal to construct a major new road through Chiswick, along the route of the railway line from Kew bridge to Barnes, Putney and Clapham, remains on the table. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and his constituents are as horrified and vehemently opposed to that proposal as am I and my constituents.

Mr. Tom Cox: And in Wandsworth.

Sir Barney Hayhoe: I am delighted to receive the hon. Gentleman's support.
The plan was floated some years ago and was decisively rejected. It should never have seen the light of day again, and the sooner it is sunk without trace and utterly abandoned the better.
My final point—you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am being brief because I know that many other hon. Members want to participate in the debate—involves my local hospital, the West Middlesex University hospital. It serves the local community with dedication and distinction, and its staff, at all levels, deserve thanks and praise. However, many of its buildings are old, decrepit and decayed. Plans to build a new, modern and efficient hospital have been under consideration for far too long. Two years ago the then Minister for Health promised

early, final and formal approval of phase one of the rebuilding plans. However, departmental and Treasury approvals are still awaited.
My constituents and the hospital staff will be greatly disappointed if Parliament adjourns and Ministers leave Whitehall to celebrate Christmas without the rebuilding work being given the go-ahead. I send seasonal greetings to the Ministers and officials involved, but I hope that in wishing them well for the new year one of their early actions will be to give approval to phase one of the rebuilding plans. Such a decision will be warmly welcomed by the local community and will boost morale at our local hospital.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I have risen rather early in the debate because, in fairness to the Leader of the House, he should have an opportunity to find out the answers to some of the questions I wish to ask and points I wish to raise.
Earlier today the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement about what he called
measures to assist the egg industry.
That gave away the Government's approach. It was not a statement to clarify the scale of the threat posed to consumers by salmonella in eggs nor about measures to make eggs safer to eat but about assisting the egg industry.
The Government's response to the increasing incidence of salmonella poisoning as a result of eating eggs is a story that ranges from buck-passing to positive lunacy by way of confusion and conflict. As a result of all that the Government have and have not done, the previously wholesome egg now carries a Government health warning. Thousands of traditional ways of using and eating eggs are apparently no longer safe. The Prime Minister talks about Victorian values but, even in pre-Victorian Britain, it was safe to eat eggs in ways that are no longer safe, at least if Jane Austen is to be believed. In "Emma", published in 1815, Mr. Woodhouse says:
An egg boiled very soft is not unwholesome.
It was not unwholesome in 1815 but we are told by the chief medical officer that now, towards the end of the 20th century, it is unwholesome. That shows how far the decline in the standards of the industry has gone.
We want to know how it has come about. How long has the problem been building up? I must put questions to the Leader of the House to which we have as yet received no answers. When was the Department of Health first aware of the scale of salmonella poisoning from eggs which led the chief medical officer to issue his warning on 26 August? When was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food aware of the facts that led to the chief medical officer issuing that warning? Was the Ministry aware of the facts when it decided to stop funding the work on salmonella at the Institute of Food Research in Bristol? If so, why did it announce those cuts in funding in November? Did it think that the research was not necessary? Does the Ministry —a collection of incompetents—think it knows it all? If it does know it all, why has it come to the House today with a scheme that provides £17 million compensation for egg producers but does nothing to reduce salmonella in eggs? The eggs destroyed will not necessarily all be infected and the chickens to be gassed will not necessarily be from infected stocks.
The Minister said:


The scheme will enable up to 4 million hens—roughly equivalent to 10 per cent. of the laying flock—to be culled under the supervision of the Agriculture Departments.
Culling usually means that one identifies and gets rid of the weak and the diseased of those parts of the stock from which one does not want to breed. The Government have not proposed a cull in that sense. They are proposing what might be described as the random destruction of 10 million hens. It will do nothing to get rid of salmonella in eggs or chickens. The Minister's statement simply said that £17 million of Government money will be spent but the eggs being sold will be just as infected as they are now and the breeding chickens will be just as contaminated with salmonella as those alive now. That is preposterous. If £17 million of public money is to be spent, it should be directed at ensuring that people can buy eggs that are safe and sound.
Perhaps the most important remark made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was in response to a direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). The Minister said,
from the evidence available to me, it is not the case that most egg production is infected.
That is a flat contradiction of the statement made by the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who said:
Most of the egg production in this country is infected with salmonella.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that the Government stated clearly that poultry and eggs from Northern Ireland have never been associated with salmonella? We are suffering badly because of the foolishness that failed to expose that, and caused the problem in the first place.

Mr. Dobson: If what the hon. Gentleman says is correct—and I have no reason to doubt it—the Government are obliged to make it clear that eggs from Northern Ireland are not contaminated. That would be only fair to egg producers in Northern Ireland and, more important, egg consumers throughout the rest of the country.
Is the statement made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South that most of the egg production is infected correct, or is that by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that most of the egg production is not affected correct? If the Minister is right, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South must have been wrong. Either one was right and the other was wrong. There is no way of fudging it.
If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South was wrong, why was her statement not corrected until today? On Monday 5 December, the Secretary of State for Health answered a private notice question but never once said that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South was wrong. On Tuesday 13 December, the Prime Minister, no less, was asked about salmonella and eggs, but did not say that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South was wrong. On 15 December, in response to a specific question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister passed up the opportunity to correct the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South by saying that she was wrong.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South has resigned, which was the honourable thing to do. Did she do so

because she was wrong? We still have not received an answer to that question. Clearly, her remarks led to a massive drop in egg consumption, but if she was right, why did she have to resign? If she was telling the truth and egg consumption fell, that was not her fault. If she was wrong, why was she not corrected by the Secretary of State for Health, who had an opportunity to do so in the House, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who also had an opportunity to do so in the House, or the Prime Minister, on the innumerable occasions when she had the opportunity to put the record straight? God knows, the Prime Minister is not usually reluctant to correct people; indeed, it might be described as her forte. She took no steps to suggest that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South was wrong.
No one knows what the truth is. Was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food telling the truth today about the scale of the infection? Given her failure to say so, presumably the Prime Minister does not agree. It would appear that until now she has agreed with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South. Two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked the Prime Minister to take scientific advice to put the record straight. He asked when it would be done, whether the Prime Minister proposed to adjudicate between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and when the Government would clear up the discrepancy between the two Departments. Many hon. Members are beginning to think that once the former Under-Secretary of State for Health resigned, she was used as a resignation fire-break, to ensure that the buck stopped short of her boss or bosses. If the former Under-Secretary was wrong, they were wrong, because they have not corrected her. If she was right, they were negligent, not only in the short-term regarding the crisis that followed the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, but for a longer period by allowing this epidemic to reach a stage at which the chief medical officer has had to advise people not to eat eggs in the way that they have traditionally done for centuries.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend take into account that this has affected not only the poultry industry but manufacturing concerns that have not been mentioned by the Government? In my constituency, a firm that manufactures poultry equipment has not received an order for a fortnight, thereby putting jobs in jeopardy. The Government, with typical concern for the farming industry, have turned a blind eye to this important issue.

Mr. Dobson: The reduction in egg consumption has had a massive knock-on effect. The problem is that this is entirely typical of the Government's short-term approach. They have proposed reductions in research into salmonella to cut public spending. They would have spent far less on research than the £on that they are paying in compensation to egg producers. It is entirely typical of the Government's short-term approach to everything, especially safety. Instead of investing to ensure that things are safe, the Government want to save money on every budget. What happened? The public rumbled what was wrong. It is not only the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South who led to the reduction in egg consumption; people had noticed the subdued efforts of the Department of Health to draw attention to what was wrong. Already


suspicious people noted what the former Under-Secretary said rather more spectacularly than the press statements of the Department of Health and took the matter seriously.
The Government owe it to the people of this country, including egg producers, to set the record straight and to rid chicken flocks and eggs of salmonella. The Government are doing nothing to achieve that, but are spending £17 million on a random destruction of chickens and eggs that has nothing to do with salmonella but everything to do with compensation. Until we receive specific answers to the questions that I have asked and, more important, until the people of this country are satisfied by straight, well-informed answers from the Government, egg consumption will not return to the levels that prevailed before.
Why should people buy eggs when they are being advised by the most senior medical officer that certain aspects of egg consumption are dangerous? The Government owe it to the people of this country, egg producers and the House to give some specific answers before Christmas and put the record straight. The record may be put straight if some of the other Ministers—who are far more involved and have had more protracted responsibility for this matter than the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South—resign. Until that happens, no one will trust anything that any of them says. They have been covering up and have been unwilling to say that the former Under-Secretary was wrong. If they thought that she was wrong, they should have said it in good time, and perhaps the crisis would not have arisen. If they thought that she was right, they have been negligent, and by continuing in this way have extended their negligence. We need answers before the House rises for Christmas. If we do not get answers, the Government will have to talk about further compensation to egg producers, because people will not consume eggs at the previous level until they are satisfied that they are safe.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: There are many good reasons why the House should not rise on Thursday. Hon. Members have heard some, but I propose to add another.
On occasions such as this, I normally attempt to interest the Government in paying war service credit to overseas Civil Service pensioners—a credit of which they have hitherto been deprived. At last, the Government recently decided to pay pensioners their due entitlement. It will mean the expenditure of about £6 million, and it will benefit about 6,000 former Colonial Service officers now in retirement—including, I am obliged to say, myself. Therefore, I record our gratitude to the Government and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who I believe was partially responsible for that gesture. It is a matter of justice to people who deserve to have justice done to them after the service that they provided for the British people over the past half century.
The issue that justifies my saying that the House should not rise for the Christmas recess concerns the appalling damage that is being done to British interests by the isolation of the United Kingdom Parliament from the European Parliament. We seem to operate in two watertight containers. There is almost no proper liaison between the two Parliaments. One consequence of that is the British people's apathy towards the European Parliament.
Today's news of the result of the Hampshire, Central Euro by-election, recording a poll of only 14 per cent. of the population, shows how uninterested British people are in European affairs, despite all the efforts of national political parties, with all that they have to gain by interesting voters in a particular by-election. It illustrates also a new danger that faces us as we move towards 1992 and the operation of the Single European Act.
The reasons for that apathy can be shown in several ways. One dates back to the time when the House mistakenly voted—I admit that I was one who voted for them—for direct elections to the European Parliament. The result was to deprive individual Members of any knowledge of or experience in the European Parliament and the European dimension of British politics. We returned about 81 British Members to the European Parliament, none of whom, apart from three Northern Ireland exceptions, was a Member of this Parliament or had any direct connection with it or with British parliamentary elections. Apathy is due also to the hostility and blind prejudice of a minority of politicians in this country, especially those in the Labour party, towards the European Parliament. The European Parliament has immense, increasing power over our livelihoods and destinies in Britain. Another reason for apathy is Government inaction in attempting to cure the problem.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend is present, because this matter concerns him. We have made too few attempts to make Members of the European Parliament welcome in this place. They are treated like members of the public, having to queue up to come in and not being allowed to use the facilities that should be extended to Members of not merely another Parliament but a Parliament that is supposed to subsume within it all the affairs and interests of this country. We treat them abominably, and we should do something about it.
We deprive ourselves of much parliamentary talent, knowledge and experience by sending our Members to serve on the Council of Europe and on the Western European Union, where, no doubt, they learn a great deal. They may be of some benefit in debates in this House when they return. I am talking about a Council of Europe that is more or less a talking shop. We have no direct representation in the European Parliament, which has so much power over this country. The Single European Act has changed matters. It is no longer possible for any member of a national party to pretend that we are not affected by decisions of the European Parliament. The problems of liaison, connections, joint consultation and negotiations have become urgent, and we must tackle them. They are primarily a House of Commons matter.
We must compare what has been done in this House with what has been done in the other place. We have one Committee, the Select Committee on European Legislation, led, at the moment, by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is an excellent Chairman. However, the Committee only scrutinises the legislation and other documents that come to us from the European Parliament, and assesses their relative importance. That is all it does. It is just one Committee of a few hon. Members, and it receives little attention in this place. The House of Lords has a Committee with a much broader brief on the affairs of the European Community. It has six sub-committees which, judging by their membership, are pretty high-powered. Most of that Committee's members


are experienced, qualified persons who know a great deal about the European Community and the problems that are common to us both.
We must examine our arrangements and future liaisons. For that purpose, we need an all-party approach. I do not just mean that all hon. Members should be involved in the arrangements; I mean that each political party in the House should consider how to get closer to our colleagues in the European Parliament to discuss how our party objectives can be strengthened and made more realisable. We need joint parliamentary and party committees in the sense in which we have Select Committees and party committees in the House. We need joint Committees with Members of the European Parliament representing British constituencies. They should meet regularly on fixed dates both here and in Brussels. They should examine, with proper back-up and research staff, matters that will ultimately be dealt with in the European Parliament, especially matters affecting the internal market.
At present, we do nothing to prepare ourselves for the great onslaught, in a parliamentary sense, from Europe. We need Joint Committees of Members of this House and of British Members of the European Parliament so that they can meet to consider those problems and to offer advice to the House, and to the parties within it, on how to tackle those matters and any questions that arise. Such Committees could report back to us both directly, through publications and through subsequent debates.
This matter has been wholly ignored until now. That is not the fault only of the Opposition, who are determined to ignore Europe and the Community, and it is not the fault only of the Government, who must provide the initiative. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is not keen on the European Community, but he is keen on British interests and the improvement of Britain's prospects in every forum in the world. Joint Committees would give us a chance, and a duty, to take the opportunities in Europe to our advantage. We cannot afford to behave as though the Community does not exist or as though we shall come out of Europe. Some hon. Members argue that we shall eventually come out of Europe. Nevertheless, they are wrong to think that we can ignore Europe completely.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend knows far more about these matters than I do. Can he give one example of a way in which the European Parliament affects his or my constituents, given the powers that it has?

Mr. Stanbrook: That misunderstanding is shared by many of our colleagues. The European Parliament has a different perspective on the problems of this country. Under the Single European Act, the whole country will be affected by decisions taken in Strasbourg or Brussels, because this country's economy is strongly affected by the decisions of the European Parliament, which has control over the budget and over economic policies. My hon. Friend demonstrates that he would rather that it had not, or that he believes that such control does not exist. It does exist, and it has existed for many years. It is getting stronger and it is time that we recognised that and made the best of our connections with the European Parliament.

Mr. James Wallace: When I heard the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) talk about the European Parliament and elections to it, I was tempted to use the opportunity to talk about direct elections by means of proportional representation, but I resisted the temptation on this occasion. No doubt the House will be grateful for that.
The issue that I want to raise relates to the provision throughout the country of Post Office counter services, and especially the provision of sub-post offices and community post offices. I also want to talk about the decision by Post Office Counters to regrade many Crown post offices to the level of sub-post office, which will affect many constituencies and which has had a particular effect in my own constituency in recent weeks. I should welcome some time to discuss that before the Christmas recess. We await a response from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
It would be helpful to debate the matter because many hon. Members have had the experience of approaching the Post Office with particular queries and being told that, as the Post Office has to operate within the parameters set down by the Government, the argument is not with the Post Office but with the Government. When one takes the argument to the Minister, one is told that such matters are daily operational matters with which the Post Office must deal. I should therefore welcome an opportunity fully to air these matters, which are of serious concern to many of my constituents.
Over the past 18 months, community post offices have developed. Many of us believed that that development was being used to disguise the fact that part-time sub-post office facilities were being introduced, with a consequent reduction in salary for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and reduced opening times. Another effect was to reduce the market value of existing sub-post offices. The Post Office has argued that a reduction in hours has been necessary to ensure the continuation of post offices in particular communities and that must be a matter of concern to the communities involved.
It is important to continue to monitor the impact of these changes to ensure that the Post Office is fulfilling its statutory social obligation to preserve a comprehensive network of post offices throughout the country, especially in remote rural areas where post office facilities are a necessary strand in the fabric of rural life. Post offices in such areas fulfil not only a service function, but an important social function. Many people are concerned that, although the Post Office has been trying to ensure the continuation of such a network, the Department of Social Security has sought actively to woo customers away from sub-post offices by encouraging them to use banking facilities, such as direct credit, for their benefits, especially pensions and child benefit. Much needs to be done to persuade people that it is in their interests to keep the service provided by local post offices and that if they do not use that service, they may lose it.
Another worrying aspect of the exercise has been the so-called consultation process. I have received one letter from a community council in my constituency which says:
to call such exercises consultation is a sham. We still fear further reductions and withdrawal of services, which could seriously damage local communities.


It is widely felt that, far from being consultation, it is merely passing on information. It would be interesting to know in how many cases the consultative process has led to significant changes in the original proposals, rather than tinkering with matters such as an hour here or changing from a Thursday to a Wednesday there. Has the process ever helped to retain an existing service?
People also fear the regrading of Crown post offices. I draw attention to the word regrading. In practice, that means the downgrading of Crown post offices to sub-post offices. In its submission to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Post Office Counters said that it intended to downgrade 750 Crown post offices in the near future. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission advocated that it should go further than that. The fear about what will happen not only to the service but to jobs has led to the recent industrial action. Such industrial action is understandable, although I cannot readily see that it advances the argument for trying to keep the present status of Crown post offices.
No doubt the problem of Crown post offices has been experienced by many hon. Members in their own constituencies. In my own constituency, the Crown post office at Stromness in Orkney is under threat. Stromness does not have a large population but it has a distinctive character and serves a wide hinterland. As the Post Office generally accepted in its discussions with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, local communities see the change in status as being an attack on the status of the town itself. The question of public service arises. Stromness post office is purpose-built and centrally situated, so people found it strange that the Post Office should argue that one reason for moving it would be to find a position where it might benefit more people. There is no location in the town that local people consider to be an improvement on the present site.
The Post Office has argued:
the proposals do not involve office closures nor do they involve any reduction in the full range of facilities we offer to our customers.
Few people believe that one gets something for nothing, so few people believe that there can be a change in status that involves cutting costs and yet enables the wide range of services to continue to exist.
I have been assured that the wide range of services will continue to exist. To the extent that that means that on day one of the operation of the downgraded system services will be the same as on the previous day, I accept that, but many people are worried about what the level of service will be one year or five years hence. What will the change mean in terms of employee training? No doubt some sub-postmasters will incorporate their sub-post office within their shop, and some people fear that if that happens the quality of training and the service provided by staff will suffer. If someone behind the counter is selling ironmongery products at one moment and dealing with driving licence applications the next, he will not necessarily provide the same quality of service as the person who has been purpose trained to provide post office services.
There is also the fear that, once a post office has been downgraded to sub-post office status, it will be much easier to change hours, cut services or go part-time at some later date. It is important to take a stand at this stage to try to ensure the continuation of the full range of services that a Crown post office can provide.
I sought reassurances from the local area manager that if Stromness were downgraded it would still be providing the same level of service as the Crown post office in Kirkwall, five years from now. He replied that he could not guarantee any services in perpetuity but said:
By way of assurance, there is no precedent for clients reducing the size of the network used; as I said, they and We want more business and the tendency is for increases in outlets. What I can say is that no service will cease because of the regrading exercise.
However, it was apparent from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report that the Home Office insists on Crown office facilities alone being used for the issue of British visitors' passports. That conflicts with the assurances given about guaranteeing the service The report also said that another reason for maintaining the Crown post offices was to ensure the security of location. That is a pertinent argument, as it is feared that security of location would be lost if the post office were downgraded.
What it boils down to is that many people feel that the Post Office is no longer providing a service as such but is having to focus its operations on a profit and loss account. Increasingly the concept of public service—to which many Post Office employees have given much of their lives—is being lost. In 21 paragraphs of conclusions and recommendations in the section of the MMC report concerning the activity of the Crown post offices there is only one mention of the customer. Sadly, the needs of customers are constantly overlooked.
Let me conclude with a positive observation. The Post Office repeatedly tells us that it is carrying out its operations in an increasingly competitive climate. Section 58 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 sets a limit on what the Post Office may and may not do at its various places of operation. It appears, however, that the statutory restrictions on the business that the Post Office can transact mean that in this increasingly competitive market the Post Office is trying to act with one arm tied behind its back. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has suggested in the past that he will do something about that at some stage, but as yet nothing has been forthcoming. It would be welcome if the Secretary of State could announce before Christmas that he proposes to relax restrictions on the Post Office so that Post Office Counters can make better use of its space and sites—many of them prime sites—to expand its activities so that it can operate in a more commercially competitive manner.
Finally, what can the Post Office do to assist in the implementation of the poll tax? I accept that it is rare for Opposition Members to suggest ways of helping with the collection of the poll tax but we accept that, once the tax is law, we should obey the law and we feel that we should seek ways of making it work to the advantage of another service. Using the network of sub-post offices, with computers linked into a terminal at the local authority headquarters, we could provide an on-the-spot facility for people to pay their poll tax by regular instalments. That. service could be on hand for the payers of the community charge. It would also provide a new source of revenue for the Post Office. It has been suggested that the Post Office has not been as enthusiastic and quick as it might have. been in picking up that possible extra source of business. I hope that—in the early months of the new year, if not before Christmas—the Post Office will consider that proposition, which would enable it to underpin its existing


network of services which many of us—especially those who represent rural areas—look forward to its providing for many years to come.

Mr. Michael Latham: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) leaves the Chamber, let me say this to him. He mentioned the Government's concession on overseas pensioners. It should not go unrecorded that he played a major part in achieving that concession. Several of my constituents have written to me to say what a great part he played in this matter, and I pay tribute to him now.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) talked about the Post Office, and I intend to follow him briefly on that matter. All of us who know and respect the Post Office and know what vital work it does for our people are disturbed by the state of its industrial relations recently. I do not attribute a reason to that. In my own town of Melton Mowbray, there have been three extremely damaging disputes in the Post Office this year, one of which was the national strike. Not long ago no mail was delivered in Melton Mowbray for two and a half weeks.
I have no intention of apportioning blame in this matter. I have suggested to the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, that he ask ACAS or the Industrial Society to undertake a proper impartial investigation of industrial relations in the Post Office. We need to know why the difficulties exist and how they can be properly and effectively addressed so that we do not have more industrial disputes which are ruinous to business. If Sir Bryan Nicholson does not reply soon, I shall have to press Ministers, because we cannot allow this disruption to continue.
The second matter that I want to raise with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House concerns the complete mess into which the Government have got themselves over the provisions in the Education Reform Act dealing with school visits and trips. I am extremely disturbed by the number of head teachers and other teachers in my constituency who have discussed with me the proposals for charging. I also received a worrying letter from the director of education of Leicestershire county council. Teachers have suggested that, because of the prohibition—with which I suspect most of us would agree in the abstract and which was introduced for a good reason following a court judgment—school swimming trips will have to be stopped at rural schools and museum trips and so on will be increasingly difficult to arrange.
When I wrote to the Secretary of State, I received a disappointing reply from a junior Minister, and as a result I have written back. I implore my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State to discuss the matter immediately with the organisations representing teachers—especially head teachers, as they are the most worried. Rural schools cannot give up educational and other important trips simply because one person refuses on principle to pay a charge and because the schools have no money to finance them. Head teachers have made it plain to me that they will not hold trips if people exercise their right not to pay; they will not put a child in that embarrassing position. The Government have

got themselves into a muddle, and the sooner they get it sorted out, the better. The new regulations do not come into force until 1 April, so there is still time.
Rural maternity units are immensely important. Leicestershire health authority, in an extreme lack of wisdom, wants to close all the rural maternity units there, including two in my constituency. Trent region has already closed too many and is well in the lead of an extremely unhappy league table of regional health authorities closing rural maternity units. Leicestershire wants to close them in Melton Mowbray and Oakham, in my constituency. I went into all this in an Adjournment debate on 9 November which was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who was then Under-Secretary of State. Neither I nor my constituents were happy with her reply.
Rural maternity units are absolutely essential for women who live in rural areas. They do not want to travel 30 or 40 miles on foggy or snowy roads to have their babies in large units in general hospitals in large towns. It is not that they have anything against large towns or hospitals, which are good, but they regard their rural maternity units as personal, local and friendly. They want to see the Government stick up for them and not agree to proposals to close them. I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the new Under-Secretary, that I shall nag him as much as I nagged his predecessor until he reprieves those two units.
What is happening and when will the ombudsman report on Barlow Clowes? I read carefully, as I am sure most hon. Members did, the report prepared by Sir Godfray Le Quesne. I did not agree with the view of the Department of Trade and Industry that that report cleared the Government. It did not. The Department of Trade and Industry has much to answer for regarding the handling of the matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that, as soon as the ombudsman's report is available, it is brought before the House and decisions are made. The handling of the matter does the Government little credit and I still believe that they have a duty to pay compensation. I shall watch this matter closely and press my right hon. Friend for early action.
My final point refers to a matter which I have raised several times at business questions and which involves all hon. Members. We all have the honour and duty of showing our constituents round the House. Let it be remembered that this is their Parliament, not ours. We are here as trustees for them and on their behalf. They have every right to see their Parliament appropriately. It is of great regret to me and hon. Members on both sides that our constituents have to queue in the rain, cold and snow for a considerable time to get into the House of Lords through the necessary security arrangements.
When my right hon. Friend first came to the House there were no such arrangements. People walked in. We know that those days have gone and, alas, will never return, and that there must be security arrangements. But it is absolutely unreasonable for elderly people and children to have to stand for long periods to get into their Parliament. If the House of Lords is making difficulties about this, and if the heritage bodies say that we cannot have awnings because they are too ugly—we have them for the state opening—please let us reverse the line of route and start it in Westminster Hall so that people can stand where it is dry rather than outside in the rain and snow. I know that my right hon. Friend is involved in this and is


having discussions with the House of Lords. I urge him to get this sorted out and to think if the British people who want to see their Parliament and not get soaking wet while doing so.

Mr. Roy Beggs: On behalf of my constituents who travel much further than many on the mainland for visits to the Palace of Westminster, I entirely support the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). We all welcome the good sense of his suggestion and look forward to its implementation for the benefit of our constituents.
I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House before the Christmas recess the concern of all of us in Northern Ireland who care about Harland and Wolff and the continuance of this great and internationally acclaimed modern shipyard. Elected representatives of the constitutional parties, trade unionists, cross-community church leaders, management and workers, together with the captains of Northern Ireland industry, as represented by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, all seek a secure future for the Belfast shipyard.
Past Government investment, skilful management, and co-operation by trade union representatives and workers have transformed Harland and Wolff into a high-tech yard, the products of which, together with those of Shorts, demonstrate throughout the world the skills and enterprise of the engineering work force in Northern Ireland.
We are concerned about and almost demoralised by the mishandling of the privatisation exercise of Northern Ireland companies which the Government seek to transfer to the private sector. The uncertainty of the past 12 months must be removed. Business confidence is being eroded by the negative approach to privatisation of Ministers, Government spokesmen and the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland.
There is a feeling of outrage and anger at the disgraceful handling of privatisation in Northern Ireland when comparisons are made with the successful transfer of companies from the public to the private sector elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have witnessed elsewhere the building of companies to provide them with a sound financial structure to ease their transition into the private sector, whereas in Northern Ireland there has been almost a destructive campaign of denigration from official sources which has damaged early prospects of a transfer of Harland and Wolff to the private sector. Despite that, the company board has supported privatisation, provided that it is carried out on a sound basis.
Government action to date has not been helpful. The company is excluded from tendering for new Ministry of Defence work until it is privatised and it has been blocked from securing any new merchant orders. More than $550 million of new work has been turned away. That included the Ultimate Dream—a concept which had wide cross-party support in the House for the largest, most innovative cruise liner in the world—and a £10 million order for a dredger that could have led to orders for a series of such vessels. All those new ships would have resulted in Harland and Wolff placing orders with 1,200 companies in the United Kingdom to the value of more than £200 million. The United Kingdom marine equipment and engineering industries as well as Belfast

shipyard are losers. Is that obstruction and are the obstacles placed before Harland and Wolff calculated to assist closure or encourage privatisation?
Shipbuilding in Belfast plays a major role in the Northern Ireland economy as a whole. Demoralisation is widespread among the 3,500 employees at the yard, among the thousands employed in 680 small businesses in Northern Ireland which supply goods and services to the shipyard and among the workers' families. Business confidence has been seriously eroded and evidence of a more constructive, positive approach by Ministers and officials in the days ahead is required in order successfully to transfer Harland and Wolff to the private sector.
The threat to Shorts of a potential breakup of that company after its transfer to the private sector is not being ruled out by the Government's financial advisers. That is causing enormous unease about the future of aircraft manufacturing in Belfast. Predators interested in only one segment of the Shorts' business could, alongside the existing threat to shipbuilding jobs, create an industrial wasteland in east Belfast. The last thing we need on top of our other difficulties is discontent in another wide section of the community. More large-scale unemployment could cause further instability in a society already suffering deep social strains.
I urge Ministers to be more careful in their stewardship of Northern Ireland and to demonstrate positive action, by which I mean commitment to that part of the United Kingdom and its industries. There is a perception, which I hope will shortly be disproved, that too often appointment to the Northern Ireland Office is but a phase in an hon. Members political career. When Ministers arid civil servants appear to speak negatively against our major industries, we are left to wonder who is working for and on behalf of Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland should not be forced to conclude that some Ministers are more interested in self-promotion than advancing causes such as privatisation in a sensible, responsible and positive way.
There has been no word of resistance from the management—of the companies concerned and the proposed management-employee buy-out of the shipyards should be explored constructively. The Government can show good will, good faith and intention successfully to transfer Harland and Wolff, Belfast to the private sector by permitting the company to tender for new contracts, including Ministry of Defence work, by resolving the issue of performance guarantees, and by spelling out whether, after privatisation, intervention funding or additional funding will be part of the financial package offered.
The Government should accept the preferred way forward of the management, who wish to embark on the Ultimate Dream project, and allow the company to build its future workload around this prestigious project. Management and workers deserve financial support to protect existing jobs and training opportunities for our young people. Job losses in manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland are difficult to replace. We all welcome the recent achievements in job creation, although we are conscious that those new jobs barely match demand from school leavers.
Our shipyard will be saved if the Government have the will to find a way forward with the workers and management. We trust that that good will will be


forthcoming and that a satisfactory solution will be quickly found which will have the support of all hon. Members.
I hope that, even before the House adjourns, a statement will be made by the Government which will usher in a bright new year for all those who depend for employment on Harland and Wolff shipyard, Belfast.

Mr. Douglas French: I believe that the House should not go into the Christmas recess before tackling an important and growing threat to road safety. While I applaud the campaign run by the Department of Transport in relation to drink driving, so far it has neglected to turn its attention to the growing menace of the dangerous use of car telephones. More and more one sees drivers driving along holding the receiver of a car telephone with one hand, while the other hand is on the steering wheel. That is a dangerous practice which needs to be curbed. If the car is equipped with an automatic gear change, it can, of course, be controlled reasonably with one hand until such time as it is necessary to steer round a corner, when it becomes more dangerous. If, however, the car has a manual gear change, a phone in one hand and a gearstick in the other leaves the driver with no hand on the steering wheel.
Some phones are equipped with a dialling facility in the handset. Some drivers will rest the handset on the lower quarter of the steering wheel and dial the digits for the number while simultaneously steering the wheel, which is another dangerous practice that needs to be curbed.
Other phones have a dialling facility on a separate console, possibly fixed near the radio or somewhere near the gear lever. Perhaps the handset does not have to be lifted to dial the number but the result is that the driver's eyes are taken off the road.
The problems, therefore, with car telephones are that, first, the driver holds the handset in one hand and steers the wheel with the other; secondly, a call is dialled in such a way as to take the driver's eyes off the road; thirdly, bad visibility is caused when the handset is held in the hand, because vision is restricted on that side of the car; fourthly, there is general distraction and lack of concentration.
I would not wish for one moment to seek to curtail the use of car telephones in any major respect. I believe that they are now widely accepted as a great advantage in business; in fact, some businesses depend very much on their use. Also, they are often an asset for personal communication, although I would draw the line at those who insist on receiving and making calls during theatre performances.
The House should urgently enact measures to ensure that car telephones are used more safely. So far, there have been comparatively few accidents which it could be said to be directly attributable to the careless use of car phones. However, the growth of their use shows that it will only be a matter of time before they are a significant ingredient in more and more accidents. In 1985, 31,500 car telephones were in use in the United Kingdom. By January 1988, that had risen to 210,000, and by August there were 300,000 car telephones. It is forecast that there will be half a million car telephones by the end of next year and five million in the

year 2000. That shows how important it is that they should be used carefully and that the risk to road safety is a growing one.
All that the highway code says on the subject is:
Do not use a hand-held microphone or telephone handset while your vehicle is moving—except in an emergency".
But the highway code is, of course, only advisory. It places on drivers the responsibility to have proper control of their vehicles at all times—but no more than that. That section of the highway code is neither adequate nor sufficiently specific. People are not heeding it, perhaps because they are not reading it.
Careless use of car telephones could also give rise, under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to offences of driving without due care and attention. In some circumstances a charge may be brought under this section, but that has always been regarded as a sweep-up provision, where it was difficult to be more precise about the exact nature of the offence being committed. I believe, however, that it is possible to be more precise about the way in which car telephones should be used. Enforcement would be difficult. Effective enforcement involves being able to monitor and stop motorists when they are using them carelessly. In those cases where no accident results, enforcement is difficult.
Some people would argue that such an attempt to restrict the way in which car telephones are used would amount to an attack on individual freedom. Those arguments were widely deployed in the House when we considered the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Some people would also be ready to argue that restrictions on the way car telephones are used would lead to attempts, for example, subsequently to stop people smoking at the same time as driving a car. That would take matters much too far. An alternative approach is to look at the instruments themselves to see the way in which they are designed and fitted. That route would present the best solution.
All car telephones should be equipped with a remote microphone and a remote loudspeaker. Many systems already have such equipment, which ensures that it is unnecessary to hold the receiver in the hand while speaking. Some people argue that extraneous noise levels, especially when driving on the motorway, make it extremely difficult to use such telephones effectively. However, contrary evidence suggests that the latest equipment with high-quality microphones and remote loudspeakers would allow motorway driving and telephoning to be combined comparatively easily.
Should car telephones be compulsorily fitted with voice-activated dialling? The technology already exists, but there are many disadvantages. It is said that voice-activated dialling is unreliable and that it may require reprogramming if a different driver is using the equipment or a call is made by a passenger. Voice-activated dialling is also very expensive. A less expensive way in which to achieve a similar result would be to permit only pre-programmed single or double-digit short-call dialling while the car is moving.
Another change would be to ensure that the dialling apparatus is always positioned on top of the fascia at windscreen level. Therefore, in so far as the driver's eyes must be averted from the road when dialling even a short-call number, his eyes would remain in the line of vision of the windscreen and other road users.


Such changes in the design and fitting of equipment—I stress equipment, rather than the way in which it is used—would limit the scope for a driver to cause danger while using a telephone when the vehicle is in motion. The problem does not arise when a telephone is used by a passenger or when the vehicle is stationary. Although a driver may be able to stop to make a call, he cannot readily stop when the time comes to receive one. Most drivers, however, do neither.
I believe that such changes are urgent, and they would enhance road safety. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider my suggestions seriously.

Mr. Tom Cox: I wish to discuss the holding of remand prisoners in either police cells or magistrates court cells because it is a continuing problem that, sadly, never seems to be resolved. The system started as long ago as 1980 when the then Home Secretary, now Lord Whitelaw, introduced it. He said then that it was temporary, yet eight years later, not only is it still operating, but the numbers involved have increased enormously. People are now moved for greater distances to be kept in police or magistrates court cells.
Over the years, many excuses have been given for keeping people in such cells, but I find it hard to accept many of them. It is important to discuss this matter tonight because the conditions under which men and women are being kept are an utter disgrace. If the Government still allow the system to continue eight years after it was introduced, I find it hard to accept why they have refused to improve the conditions under which people are kept.
I shall quote some figures to give the Leader of the House an idea of the problem. In 1982, when records were being kept, 42 people were in police cells or magistrates court cells in England and Wales. In a reply that I received today from the Home Office I am informed that, on the latest available figures, at 31 October 1988, 1,531 prisoners, most of whom were on remand, were being held in police cells. Therefore, in eight years, the numbers of people held in such cells has increased from 42 to more than 1,500. They are held in many parts of the country, no matter where they are due to appear in court. One of my constituents appeared in a London court and was then moved to police cells in Northampton. When his relatives went to see him, the police told them it was inconvenient.
I received a letter dated 12 December from the wife of a man who is being held now at Bow road police station in London. She says:
He has been on remand for eight weeks in various police stations and prisons throughout London and as far as Grimsby in the north.
Yet that man must appear at a London court.
We all know that remand prisoners who are held in prison have certain rights under the prison rules, yet those rights do not extend to anyone being held in a police cell or in a magistrates court cell. In prison, if one is dissatisfied about the conditions under which one is kept, one can complain to the number one governor, the wing governor or the boards of visitors. One has a statutory right to complain about the conditions under which one is kept, but if one is kept in police cells or in magistrates court cells, the only person to whom one can complain is the officer in charge or a member of the lay visitors. If one complains,

however, the answer is "Sorry. There is very little we can do. We don't have the proper facilities to hold you here for a long time."
Let us consider the conditions of such prisoners. Invariably there is a lack of space, and often the only means of keeping one's possessions is in plastic bags. The cells are often impossible to keep properly clean and there is often no clean bedding. Someone who is held in a police cell or in a magistrates court cell may suffer from an infectious disease. That person may be moved or released, but the next person who is allocated the cell will be sleeping in the same bedding.
The heating and ventilation in many such cells is non-existent. Often the meals are poor; and there is no provision for those with special diets. The facilities for medical treatment are poor; people often have to wait a long time before they see a doctor. We are aware that, sadly, people suffering from mental illness are put in such cells, yet we know from all the available records that they should not be kept under such conditions.
Opportunities for exercise are often lacking. Wandsworth prison is in my constituency and I often receive complaints about the lack of exercise, but at least those facilities exist. In many police stations or magistrates courts, there are no facilities for people to exercise, however short that exercise time may be.
Washing facilities are an utter disgrace and often there is no privacy. A report dated 24 November, which was presented to the Wandsworth police consultative committee, of which I am a member, recorded what was reported to the committee by lay visitors:
Lay Visitors are currently attempting to effect improvements in arrangements for female remand prisoners and also to ensure that remand prisoners can enjoy some privacy when making use of washing facilities … This has already led to at least one complaint from a female remand prisoner as regards the lack of privacy in the presence of male police officers. This problem is compounded because the wash basin at the Lavender Hill Police Station (the only washing facility available) is not enclosed.
Such lack of privacy would be bad enough for many men, who would say they were entitled to privacy when taking a shower or bath—if such things were available. We all know how our wives and daughters would feel if, sad to say, they found themselves in these conditions.
All this has been happening for a long time. Senior police officers have often told me that these people should not be in police cells. The police do not have the facilities to keep remand prisoners for a long time, or the experience to do the job. Police staff who are allocated to look after remand prisoners take up time that could be used for other work.
I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Treasury Bench; this subject, I hope, greatly concerns the Home Office. The sad thing about the number of people who are still held in police stations or magistrates courts on remand is that space is available in prisons up and down the country. I shall not go into detail this evening, but the Under-Secretary knows that that is a fact. Many held in police cells ultimately receive no custodial sentence. We must bear in mind the fact that, when Lord Whitelaw introduced the system in 1980, he made it clear that it was temporary. My plea is that courts should show far more concern about the number of people whom they place in custody on remand—there does not seem to be great concern now.


The Home Secretary and the Home Office must stop this practice. It could be stopped, and many people involved in penal matters in the country believe that the time to stop it is now. Eight years is long enough: what was supposed to be a temporary provision must now be ended. I hope that, in the near future—even before Christmas—we shall hear a statement from the Government that the system will at long last be ended.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House rises for Christmas it should consider three matters concerned with love—that which makes the world go round.
The first is hospital radio. I am the voluntary spokesman for the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations. On 14 February next year there will be an "I love hospital radio broadcasting" day. There will be a lobby of the House, whose members will ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to zero-rate VAT on hospital radio broadcasting equipment—in other words, to treat our charity in the same way as talking newspapers for the blind. This would mean only a small amount of money to the Treasury but a great deal to all the enthusiastic volunteers in the association. Ours is the largest registered charity with no paid officers in the United Kingdom. Every penny goes into the service. There are 330 stations in the United Kingdom, many serving more than one hospital.
Many hon. Members will realise that much of the equipment being used in hospital for radio broadcasting is breaking down, so it is important that the Home Office look favourably on our application for a broadcast frequency allocation for hospital radio—a single frequency. That would help considerably with the costs that we incur for radio headsets.
My second point about love has to do with the erection of memorials in cemeteries. Many people would ask why we should bother about them, as so many believe in cremation, but I think that many people are concerned about the quality and type of memorials that are permitted in cemeteries.
The Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 empowers a burial authority, in general a local council, to grant the right to put up a tombstone or other memorial, subject to such conditions as it thinks proper. Paragraph 3 of the same order gives authorities a general power of management to
do all such things as they consider necessary or desirable for the proper management, regulation and control of a cemetery.
So local authorities can make such rules as they wish about the size and appearance of gravestones. There are no general guidelines in the form of byelaws.
Many constituents are worried from time to time about what they see as unreasonable rules and regulations laid down by local churches or local authorities, which do not show enough compassion in allowing different types of memorials. I know of one family who live in an east end constituency who have spent about two years trying to come to an agreement with their local authority about the sort of memorial that they are permitted to erect.
My final point about love concerns the "I love Basildon" campaign. It was launched earlier this year and it will continue throughout 1989. There have been many

critics of the finest new town in the country, which is rapidly becoming the finest town of any kind. The campaign is all about telling people that we are building a fine town and that we want to keep it that way. It deals with litter, graffiti and vandalism. It even teaches dogs to read signs saying that they will be fined £100 should they foul the footpaths.
On a serious note, many hon. Members will be appalled at the amount of litter that is dumped on our streets and at the graffiti that spoils our environment. If any hon. Member can tell me why this is happening, I should be glad to know. From time to time in the House we mention the problems of litter, graffiti and vandalism but then they are forgotten. I am delighted that the Government, led by the Prime Minister earlier this year, are doing all that they can to help the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign. We are doing our bit in Basildon. Badges and car stickers saying "I love Basildon" have been produced and all sorts of competitions are being held in the town to make people more aware of their environment. I am especially delighted that the schools in the town are entering into the spirit of the campaign, but it is not just young people who are responsible for dumping litter. Time after time when one is stuck on the motorway one sees people winding down their car windows and chucking out tin cans or cigarette ends. Who do they think will pick up that rubbish? Some people may consider that a frivolous point, but I believe it to be important.
There is no finer way of demonstrating our love for our country than by taking more care of and treating our environment with more respect than we do now.

9 pm

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: As the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) talked about love, I was reminded of the epigram of Oscar Wilde: art an illusion, love a myth, and religion a fashionable substitute for belief. I was under the impression that in the modern world love is something that occurs only in soap operas, not in people's real lives. But apparently things are different in Basildon.
It would be a mistake for the House to rise before it had a chance to discuss a report published last week by the Department of Trade and Industry entitled "Summer International plc, formerly Sumrie Clothes plc". It relates to a two-year investigation into the affairs of Mr. Michael Hepker. The report is by Sir Michael Kerry, QC and Keith Carmichael. In effect, the report calls Mr. Hepker a liar and a cheat. It suggests that he was involved in concert parties in relation to share ownership and that he committed a number of offences under the Companies Act 1985. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in the House of Lords, but one of his junior Ministers should come here and tell us why the Department has said that Mr. Hepker will not be prosecuted. From where does his immunity stem?
The report states:
In a number of respects we have been given evidence and explanations of events which have, to say the least of it, strained our credulity…We have considered reporting to the Court Mr. M. Z. Hepker's failure to provide satisfactory answers to many of our questions.
It said that there is "strong" evidence of breaches of sections 324 and 198 of the Companies Act by Mr. Hepker in that he did not disclose his interest in shares held by Le


Chevalerique and Anglo-European in the company Sumrie Clothes. The report also said that there was evidence of a concert party.
A Minister should come to the House and explain not only why there was no prosecution but why the inspectors made it clear in their report that Ministers at the Department stopped them carrying out their investigation and prevented them from taking it to a proper conclusion. As long ago as 29 July 1987, the inspectors recommended to the Department that the Secretary of State should make an order under section 445 of the 1985 Act that the shares held by Le Chevalerique should be subject to restrictions under part XV of the Companies Act. That means that the shares could not he sold and that no voting rights would attach to them until their ownership had been cleared up. The inspectors recommended that because they believed that Mr. Hepker was prevaricating and not telling them the truth. Amazingly, the Department did not back the inspectors but said, on 19 August 1987, that it would not recommend making such an order because of the likely effect on the company and its employees.
I do not believe that that was the reason why the Department refused to carry out the wishes of the inspectors. It turned down the inspectors' request, first, because of the political embarrassment that it knew that nuisances and investigators like me would cause. I was the one who forced the Department to publish the report after a series of parliamentary questions. The two inspectors have made it clear privately that they do not understand why the report was not published for six months or why the Department refused to allow them to continue their inquiries.
I have been on the inside of the affair from start to finish. I know that the Department has decided that it does not wish to pursue its inquiries to their ultimate conclusion. The inspectors write:
We have since that date"—_
that is, 19 August 1987—
followed up a number of outstanding leads but are now convinced that under the terms of our appointment there is nothing more which can usefully be achieved. Accordingly we have brought our investigation to a close.
Civil servants and Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry have discovered that it would cost between £160 and £180 an hour to employ someone to pursue their inquiries. Apparently, although the Government are flush with money. they cannot afford that sum to catch City fraudsters. They can afford that money to catch people who defraud the Department of Social Security and to do almost anything else, but, when it comes to someone whom their own inspectors make it clear is a criminal, they are not prepared to pursue the matter.
As long ago as 15 August 1985, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer under confidential cover, as follows:
Dear Nigel, For the reasons which will be obvious from letters one to five, I do not think that Mr. Michael Hepker is a fit person to run a public company.
I ended that letter:
I am slightly puzzled as to why it is that Mr. Hepker is able to break so many of the laws of England and the rules of the Stock Exchange too. Perhaps you could let me know where his immunity comes from.
Three years on, I believe that it is now time for a Minister to come to the House with that report in his hands and say where Mr. Hepker's immunity comes from.
The Department of Trade and Industry has also been told about a company called Meldoak which involves Mr. Hepker. I wrote to the Attorney-General on 15 August, 17 August, 22 August and 3 September 1985 and on 19 January 1986, with copies to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that case, according to the allegations, all the company's money, £650,000, was stolen by Mr. Hepker.
The south Wales police carried out an investigation and found that there was a prima facie case to answer. The Director of Public Prosecutions saw the papers and found that there was a prima facie case to answer, but he then said that, as the bank account of that United Kingdom company was held in the Isle of Man, the criminal offence had been committed in the Isle of Man and the papers would be passed there. A Minister should come to the House and tell us what help the United Kingdom authorities are giving to the Isle of Man fraud squad. It is traditionally known that the Isle of Man fraud squad is virtually non-existent and that the British police help them in such difficult circumstances. We should be told what the state of play is in this case when there is a prima facie case to answer. Why is there no prosecution?
In 1985—I believe in playing politics long—I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a case called Supasave in which it was alleged that £1·5 million had been taken by Mr. Hepker. The liquidator who was investigating the offence is still doing so and has no intention of letting the matter go. It was a complicated matter, but, because I am a reasonable man and realised how complicated the money merry-go-round was, I drew a diagram for the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that he could see what was happening as the money moved around the companies. I have in my hand a copy of the original diagram. A Minister should come and tell us what progress has been made in prosecuting Mr. Hepker in that case.
On 2 August 1985, I wrote to Price Waterhouse about some of the affairs of Sumrie Clothes. Some of them have been discussed in the report, but the inspectors say that they were not pertinent to their inquiries. I drew attention to six major affairs where there was prima facie evidence of breaches of the Companies Act 1985. Price Waterhouse has never replied to my letter. I sent a copy of my letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. A Minister should come here and tell us the state of play on those six allegations.
The matter simply will not go away. I understand that recently Mr. Michael Hepker was kept under continuous surveillance. I am not going to say who was keeping him under surveillance, but a copy of the report that I have found its way into the hands of Private Eye. On Wednesday there will be more revelations about Mr. Michael Hepker which will involve him, the report, Supasave, Meldoak and the breaches of the Companies Act 1985 which I reported to Price Waterhouse. It will also involve other public figures.
I have arranged to meet the editor of Private Eye tomorrow to ask him if he will allow me to send this copy of the report to the Department of Trade and Industry. Will the Leader of the House help me? There is no point in my trying to persuade the editor to let me produce the report and give it to the Department of Trade and Industry if Ministers deal with the affair in the way that they dealt with the report produced by the Government's inspectors, the Meldoak case, Supasave and the six facts that I


referred to Price Waterhouse. If the Leader of the House will tell me that if I can persuade the editor of Private Eye to send this valuable document to the Department of Trade and Industry the Department will act on it, I will do that in the public interest.

Mr. Graham Riddick: ' What I would like to know is, what action do the Government intend to take following the article in The Observer on 13 November entitled
CND men: We sprang spy Blake"?
In that article two former CND activists, Pat Pottle and Michael Randle, are quoted as admitting that they organised the escape from prison in 1966 of the Soviet spy and MI6 traitor, George Blake. Blake had been sentenced to a record 42 years imprisonment by the Lord Chief Justice five years previously in 1961. Many believe that the 42 years represented the number of British agents for whose deaths Blake was responsible.
George Blake seriously undermined the work of Britain's and our allies' security services. He was and remains to this day one of Britain's most notorious traitors. That any British citizens should want to help that man to escape from prison is surprising; that any British citizens would want to admit that they had organised his escape is astonishing, unless they intended to cash in on their activities by publishing a book.
Not only does The Observer quote Pat Pottle saying "We did it", but he is quoted as saying:
We are proud of what we did.
If it is true, that must represent the most appallingly treacherous behaviour. It is unlikely that the two individuals to whom I have referred were simply embarked on a publicity stunt because their names had been implicated previously in the affair by Montgomery Hyde in his biography of Blake in 1987 and The Sunday Times has subsequently picked up the story. It is only now, however, that those two individuals have admitted their part in the affair.
The Attorney-General's office has confirmed that a prosecution is not precluded simply because the events occurred 22 years ago. This matter cannot be ignored. If it is, it will give the green light to other criminals to keep their heads down for a number of years and then to try to cash in many years later by publishing a book. An early-day motion signed by 80 of my hon. Friends will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper urging the Government to initiate legal proceedings on the matter. I understand that a prosecution could be forthcoming for contravention of section 39 of the Prison Act 1952 which relates to assisting escape from Her Majesty's prisons.
The participation of two former CND activists in such apparently treacherous activities would tend to give credence to the suspicions held by many of us that some individuals involved in CND are not necessarily arguing their case from a wholly patriotic and British standpoint.
It is particularly interesting that Michael Randle is a lecturer at the school of peace studies at Bradford university. I do not for a moment imagine that the university knew about Mr. Randle's earlier prison-related activities and expertise when he was first employed. However, it raises the interesting point as to how much influence CND has at the Bradford university school of

peace studies. Whether peace studies are a suitable subject for academic study and research is an interesting question in itself. I do not intend pursuing that argument now, although Baroness Cox and Professor Scruton have argued forcefully in their book "Peace Studies: A Critical Survey" that peace studies are not a genuine educational discipline.
I question whether the university's school of peace studies approaches its academic work in a wholly objective manner, whether it is deserving of Government funding through the University Grants Committee, or whether—as some of us suspect—it is little more than a production line of anti-Government political propaganda. The peace school is rather good at getting itself into national newspapers. I dug out references to it in the national media in 1987, using the textline facility to which all right hon. and hon. Members have access. It certainly makes interesting reading. April 1987:
A study published yesterday by Bradford University's school of peace studies has claimed that over 600 neutron bombs are stored in the US, and a similar number of weapons soon to be deployed in Europe may be easily converted into neutron weapons.
May 1987:
A report published yesterday by Bradford University's school of peace studies claims that cancellation of the Trident missile could save £11·6 billion.
June 1987:
A report drawn up by the Bradford University school of peace studies alleges that 22 accidents involving nuclear weapons in or around the UK have been concealed by the military authorities.
It is interesting to note the objective justification for that claim:
The school's report, admitting that it relied on inference and deduction rather than on hard facts, justifies that by citing the Government's own policy of secrecy and the frequency of accidents involving nuclear weapons elsewhere.
I feel sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that that is a very academic way of approaching the subject!
An August 1987 item reported:
A report published today by Bradford University's school of peace studies has accused the British Government of collaborating with the US to delay or obstruct the Geneva committee on disarmament.
And so they go on. There are a number of references of that kind, but nowhere does one read anything about the Soviet Union—that is, not until November 1987:
Bradford University's school of peace studies has concluded that the Warsaw Pact may not have overall conventional weapon supremacy. They have concluded that, allowing for the high quality of western equipment, there is a rough parity.
So now we know!
I do not suggest that everything produced by the school lacks intellectual rigour or is politically one-sided—although I understand how someone could reach that conclusion. However, it strikes me as incredible that such a school, based at one of Britain's major universities, has practically nothing to say to the press or in its own publications about the threat posed by the Soviet Union's massive armed forces and those of the Eastern bloc countries. There is little mention of the Soviet Union's numerical superiority of troops, tanks, artillery and aircraft.
More importantly, no mention is made of the nature of the Soviet system, the absence of any legal opposition in that country, the long-cherished Communist ambition of world domination—

Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Riddick: I am under pressure of time, so I shall not do so, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The school makes no mention either of the fact that Soviet leaders have been responsible for the deaths of millions of their own citizens, that Russia has taken over so much of Europe by force, and that that Communist country ruthlessly smashed by invasion opposition in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland—in effect, and Afghanistan. In other words, the school says nothing to explain why the West, including Britain, feels that it is necessary to possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the Soviet Union's expansionist ambitions.
One looks in vain to the school's prospectus and to its publicationsfor evidence of any balance in its approach. Its publications include titles such as, "As Lambs to the Slaughter: The Facts about Nuclear War," and "Defence Without The Bomb". That was produced by the alternative defence commission set up by the peace school in conjunction with the Lansbury House Trust. By its own admission it is a unilateralist body. The prospectus tells us:
This is a major initiative concerned with the development of proposals for alternatives to British defence policies which currently rely in whole or in part on nuclear weapons.
Of course, the individuals involved were unilateralists.
The senior lecturer in peace studies at the school has been heard to say that much of the intake of students has come as a result of courses being advertised in "Sanity", CND's magazine. But it was Professor O'Connell, formerly professor of peace studies, who let the cat out of the bag when he told a conference back in 1985:
The Bradford school of peace studies is not an activist enterprise; it serves instead to provide activists with the academic resources which they need.
Yes, indeed; that is exactly what many of us thought. I should like to know what the Government are doing funding this bogus centre of academic study.

Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether, when he began to organise this attack on Bradford university, he approached any Bradford Members for their comments, or whether he submitted any of his comments to any member of the peace studies department for comment? That would at least have been fair.

Mr. Riddick: No, I did not. The issue has come up very recently. Michael Randle, the ex-CND activist, has only recently admitted to having sprung Blake. In the past, however, both Baroness Cox and Professor Scruton carried out detailed examinations of what goes on in the peace studies school. The school itself was not very forthcoming in providing information when it realised that it was under attack.
Bradford university's school of peace studies seems to be a mouthpiece of one-sided unilateralist arguments funded by the taxpayer. The taxpayer should no longer have to bear that burden.

Mr. Max Madden: I last had the misfortune to follow the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) when he was making a very inept defence of the Economic League. On that occasion he was attempting, in a very amateurish fashion, to defend the indefensible; tonight he has attempted to make an equally ill-researched attack on the Bradford peace studies department.
If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the department and its work, he would know that it enjoys a national and international reputation among a wide range of individuals for objectivity and independence of view. I suggest that, before he engages in another attack on the department, he attends one of its series of seminars or pays a visit to the department itself, where its members will he only too pleased to inform him about international and national relationships. I certainly hope that, before he launches another such amateurish attack on the department, he will obtain some information about its work.
I wish briefly to draw to the House's attention some matters that Bradford Members have experienced great difficulty in bringing to the House. I refer, of course, to the actions and policies of Bradford's Conservative council. It is only 14 weeks ago that the Conservatives secured political control of the city of Bradford, and it is only nine weeks ago that, at its first full meeting, Bradford council embarked upon a massive cuts package, secured by the mayor's casting vote. We still await the High Court's verdict on whether its action was lawful.
We know that the Conservatives in Bradford have no mandate whatever for the policies upon which they have embarked. There was no election manifesto commitment to the people of Bradford to embark on these policies. No Conservative candidate who has advocated cuts has been elected in any election in Bradford. There is no popular support from the people of Bradford for the cuts package that the Conservatives, under the Conservative leader, Councillor Pickles, have inflicted upon us in recent weeks.
In my view, it is quite wrong that the House of Commons should be prevented from debating these matters and from having them drawn to its attention. The education cuts amount to more than £3 million in the current year, and schools throughout Bradford are very worried about their impact. Head teachers have warned us that they may result in classes having to be increased to 60 children. We have been warned that children may be sent home.
We have also been told that desperately needed repairs are likely to be deferred for years, perhaps indefinitely. Only recently we were told that £18 million needs to be spent upon urgent repairs in Bradford. In the midst of all this, we have heard recently that Bradford is to be the site of a city technology college, sponsored by the Dixon group. We understand that £8 million of taxpayers' money is to be provided to build the CTC.
Mr. Stanley Kalms, the chairman of the Dixon group, who was good enough to meet me recently, confessed that he was anxious to build a CTC in the north. It seemed clear to me from my conversation with him that he was desperate to build a CTC anywhere in the north. It was equally clear that his knowledge of Bradford was just as poor as that of the hon. Member for Colne Valley. He knew nothing about the close relationship that schools in Bradford have had for many years with local business and industry. He certainly knew nothing about the great disappointment that many of my constituents felt when it was announced that the CTC was to be sited on Newby square, which has been used for housing for many years and which, until the middle of October, the local community believed was to be the site of new family-sized housing at low rent and at low cost.
There has been outrage in Bradford at the prospect of a CTC being built on Newby square. People believe that it


will do great damage to existing schools, particularly the existing upper schools. It is feared that the CTC will undermine the viability of existing sixth forms. Many upper schools fear that many people in Bradford will regard them as ghetto schools where the less able children who cannot gain a place in the CTC have to go.
If Mr. Kalms has £1 million to spend, I urge him to spend it on the existing schools in Bradford. We know that the science laboratories of 11 middle schools are either too small or even unsafe. That would be a very good way for Mr. Kalms to spend his £1 million.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that I wrote to Mr. Kalms and suggested that he should spend some of the money on retaining the remedial teachers whom Bradford, under the Tories, is sacking at the end of this year? They are helping brain-damaged children to learn to read, which is very important. However, Mr. Kalms felt unable to help this very important though rather obscure side of education. Instead, he wants to spend the money of shareholders in the Dixon group on an advertising sign on a college that is to be paid for largely by Bradford ratepayers.

Mr. Madden: That would be another very good way in which available money from Dixon's, or taxpayers' money, could be spent.
I have also asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science for a ballot. Ballots are very popular with Ministers. We seem to be having ballots about everything, yet I have not received a reply, after weeks of the Minister considering my proposals for a ballot, as to whether there should be a CTC in Bradford. The people of Bradford should be allowed to decide how £8 million of their money should be spent. Do they want a CTC or do they want the available funds spent on improving existing schools?
In Bradford, school meal charges were increased to 80p on 7 November. That was an increase of almost 100 per cent. for parents of the youngest children. The number paying for school meals has fallen very sharply. At its peak, 10,000 children who used to pay for school meals were no longer taking them. The latest figure remains very high, at 8,900. I urge Councillor Pickles and the Bradford Conservative council to scrap the school meal price increase, which has done great damage and has resulted in large numbers of children not getting what was their only daily hot meal.
In an open letter Professor Ruth Lister of the department of applied social studies at the university of Bradford, following a meeting with Councillor Pickles, wrote:
Secondly, I raise the question of the impact of the increase in school meal prices. As you know, it is only children whose families claim income support who now qualify for free school meals. It is officially estimated that about 8,000 children lost the right to free school meals in Bradford this April. For them, in particular, the price increase has been a bitter blow. The family credit is supposed to provide compensation. However, there will be many families who are either not entitled to family credit (including many widows and invalidity pensioners) or not claiming their entitlement nationally, take-up is running at only 30 per cent. of those eligible.
Even for those who are in receipt of family credit the compensation does not meet the cost of a school meal in Bradford for it is currently based on an average school meal price of about 65p. While you have dismissed the difference as

'a few pence' in the local press, those 'few pence' can make a lot of difference to a mother struggling to make ends meet, especially if she has more than one child at school.
I know that from my own experience. One of my constituents is a widow who is 14p above income support entitlement and now has to pay £20 a week for school meals for her five children.
The benefit advice shops in Bradford, Shipley and Keighley are now to close on Friday. We had been warned originally that the closure was likely to take place in March or even as late as April, but it is now to take place on Friday. Even at this late stage, I urge Bradford city council to keep the shops open, so that people who desperately need advice and assistance can receive help on the range of benefits and the other issues that they have taken to the advice shops. Some 60,000 people have made inquiries at those shops in the past three years.
Professor Ruth Lister also writes:
First, as you know, we are very unhappy about the likely consequences of the closure of the Benefit Shops. I argued tht the suggestion that the Council wished to avoid a duplication of services indicated a misunderstanding of the nature and significance of the kind of work done by the Benefit Shops. The Lord Chancellor himself, in a recent interview, acknowledged that welfare benefits call for a specialised type of information and advice and that they can raise important legal questions. Specialist agencies such as the Benefit Shops therefore play an important role for which the Department of Social Security and the general voluntary sector cannot provide an adequate substitute. The DSS cannot provide independent advice or help with appeals.
That is our experience in Bradford. There are only five Asian-speaking staff in the local DSS offices and there are no Asian-speaking claimant advisers in the unemployment offices. There is only a handful of interpreters and no literature is available from the DSS in any language but English. Therefore, the 28 benefit application forms and advice notes in English are not available in any of the Asian languages. That is important for Bradford.
I urge the Government to persuade Bradford council to keep the shops open, at least until I and other Bradford Members, together with a delegation from Bradford, have attended a meeting to discuss the implications of the closure and to urge that, if the shops are to close, contingency plans be made to appoint extra trained and qualified staff.
There are many other matters to which I could refer. For example, I could have mentioned the closure of the Centrepoint teleshopping lifeline and the way in which millions of pounds have suddenly been found to build private homes on the Lower Grange estate, when only weeks ago we were told that it was impossible for the council to find £300,000 to build new council homes on that estate. Other matters include the refusal of Bradford council, under its new Conservative leadership, to contribute rate money to relieve disasters around the world, including Bangladesh.
The policies and actions of Bradford Conservative council, in the 14 short weeks in which it has been in power, have created outrage and anger, despair and desolation. The churches, the voluntary sector and those who care about children, the elderly and the poor know that the council's policies are making the problems of the poor much worse. The Tories have been able to secure their policies by the casting vote of the mayor. They intend to keep the mayoralty next year: the people of Bradford will have no opportunity to elect new councillors because there will be no elections. Decent Tories in Bradford and


elsewhere are worried and deeply disturbed by the impact of these policies, especially on the poor in Bradford. They know that what Councillor Pickles and his small group of political ideologues are doing is wrong. Ministers must know that it is wrong.
It is high time that Ministers intervened and, albeit privately and quietly, persuaded Bradford council to turn back. That is what I hope will happen as a result of the debate. If it is not forced to turn back, the misery that it is heaping on my constituents and others throughout the district will grow deeper, as will cynicism about the lack of democracy in Bradford.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Time is short, but I ask the Minister to consider two urgent questions. First, will he consider the facilities for Iranian business men coming to the United Kingdom? That may seem a strange request, but the Minister will be aware of the huge new market which will provide jobs in Britain from purchases in Iran. Any Government official coming from Iran comes on a service passport. He has to go to a British embassy somewhere and has to wait for a long time. The information then has to go to the Home Office and come back. That can involve long, depressing and humiliating waits.
Almost every other country in Europe has adopted different arrangements. Countries outside the EEC have changed their arrangements because of the unique opportunity. In Germany, Switzerland and Italy no visas are required. In Spain and France no visas are required for service passports. There is an opportunity to make money and to create business. In four new towns Germany has had an opportunity to provide power and sewerage systems and Italy has been involved in four major petrochemical stations. Urgent consideration must be given to the opportunity that we offer people to come here from Iran.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of a half-hour or hour debate on the egg industry to answer some simple questions. If the Government knew in August, as they said they did, that a serious problem was affecting the health of people and that it was not sensible for them to eat raw eggs, why were there not advertisements in the press and why was not attention drawn to the code of conduct? It would be a tragedy if the Government were regarded as having a two-sided policy for agriculture and the consumer.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): This has been an interesting debate and perhaps has covered more subjects than usual. I shall do my best to reply to as many questions as I can.
We have had a busy start to the 1988–89 Session and already the House has given seven Bills a Second Reading. I have no doubt that in the new year we shall be equally busy with further good measures. In the meantime, the dates for the Christmas recess proposed in the motion are generally acceptable, and I commend them to the House.
I wish you, Mr. Speaker, hon. Members, the Officers and staff of the House who serve us a pleasant Christmas and new year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made some criticism of the fact that the timing of this debate has prevented the Consolidated Fund Bill from starting until 10 o'clock. I recognise his concern, but if we had not spent this afternoon debating the motion we would have had to sit on Friday. When arranging the business for this week, the Government tried to reach a solution acceptable to the House, which I believe we did. My hon. Friend was right to refer to the rights of the minority, which are important, but the majority have rights and it is my task to achieve the most acceptable balance. I shall try not to do the same next time—indeed, I will try not to do the same at any time—but I cannot give an absolute guarantee that it will not happen again in the future. I recognise that it is a shortcoming in the way in which we arrange our affairs if we reduce the amount of time available for Back Benchers.
Understandably, there has been some discussion about eggs and I appreciate the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the specific points made by my hon. Friend and the important concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), but it is important to put some of the views in their proper context.
The output of the egg industry is worth about £500 million per annum at the farm gate. It provides employment for at least 15,000 people and, in normal circumstances, costs the taxpayer little in support. Unfortunately, there is a problem at present, as the Government and industry accept. The number of outbreaks of food poisoning linked to eggs has increased this year, but the problem must be kept in perspective. The number of reported cases of food poisoning from salmonella linked to eggs is small compared with the huge number of eggs eaten each week—200 million, or about 30 million a day.
When it became clear in the summer that there was a problem, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, together with the Department of Health, immediately started talks with the industry to tackle the problem and to take action at every point in the food production chain. Among other things, that led to the publication of a code of practice. Codes of practice are only a start. The Government are continuing to work on several other matters, including the stringent monitoring of animal protein for animal feed.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stopped funding research at Bristol because, after an extensive review, it was decided that the research had reached a successful conclusion and the project was ready for industrial support. I repeat that the Government have been taking several actions over a period to tackle the problem of salmonella.

Mr. Dobson: The Ministry thought that the industry was going to support the research but it has not. As a result of the recent crisis it will not be able to support it.

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman heard me correctly, I did not necessarily say that the poultry industry was ready for industrial support, as such. That is the information that I have had, and I believe it to be correct.


However, there is an immediate short-term problem. Uncertainty has caused a sharp decline in egg sales. That has caused acute political and financial difficulties for the industry. In such wholly exceptional circumstances, the Government have decided to introduce two short-term measures, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this afternoon.
The reduction of the egg laying flock will enable short-term supply and demand to be brought back into better balance. Clearly, it is hoped that measures will be taken quickly to restore order to the egg market, in the interests of the consumer and everybody else in that important sector of the food industry.

Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that a section of manufacturing industry has been affected? Twenty-eight jobs in a small firm in my constituency are at stake. That firm has not had an order for two weeks, whereas, in the normal course of events, it would have had seven. Because that firm is as affected as much as anybody else, it deserves consideration as part of the compensation scheme.

Mr. Wakeham: Reference has been made to that point, and I have specifically referred it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall not give way. I shall continue my remarks, as I have many other subjects to deal with.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised social security matters. The prime reason for the proposed changes in hostel arrangements is to achieve more sensible arrangements for hostel dwellers within the reformed income support scheme. It is anomalous to have a special scheme for only 25,000 claimants, many of whom live in ordinary houses in the community. However, the Government are anxious to ensure that the reform of payments to hostels should not jeopardise the future of hostels. That is why, on 21 October, we announced that the change should be deferred until after next April to allow more time to consider the effects on hostel finances.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, the Social Security Ministers made clear the need to wait until all the results of the OPCS investigations are available in July 1989 before deciding whether any changes in benefits are required for disabled people. From what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, one would not have thought that Government spending on the disabled had increased by about 90 per cent. since this Government have been in office.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) raised four questions, with which I shall deal quickly. First, he raised the matter of child benefit. He was wrong in what he said because child benefit is included in the order and will be relevant to the debate tomorrow. The arrangements for the debate were approved by a motion in the House on Friday. I recognise his concern about credit, but he also recognised that, although he may be concerned about other methods of credit, housing finance and mortgage commitments are the

major factor. The rise in interest rates has already had some effect because it has slowed down mortgage commitments and increased saving.
My right hon. Friend raised two other matters of constituency interest. I remember my days as a candidate in Putney—a long time ago—and the questions which my right hon. Friend raised about the road project are familiar to me. I can say only that there will be a public inquiry, at which his views and those of his constituents will be heard and taken into account. On the West Middlesex University hospital, an approval in principle submission is currently under consideration and a decision will be announced as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) raised two matters. First, he was kind enough to speak about pensions for the Overseas Civil Service and I am grateful to him for what he said. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) that my hon. Friend must take much of the credit for that because he persisted in the matter for a long time. In the end, justice was done.
My hon. Friend also raised the matter of access to this place for Members of the European Parliament. I recognise that matters are not as they should be but, on the general question, I can make progress only with the general agreement of the House that such proposals are the right way forward. I am afraid that a number of hon. Members—a few Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members—are unhappy with the proposals about access. I have done my best and I should like to see better arrangements. Like my hon. Friend, I deplore the low turnout in the election in Hampshire, Central. Of the 14 per cent. who voted, two of the voters were my wife and I. That did not make a substantial difference to the turnout.
I must tell my hon. Friend that I hear few complaints from Members of the European Parliament about access to the Government and to Ministers. I believe that they feel that they receive a fair hearing from Ministers and that they are able to put to them the points in which they are interested.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised the question of Crown post offices and sub-post offices, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. The Post Office is currently considering the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report into the activities of Post Office Counters Ltd. The Government will publish the Post Office's response to the report when consideration has been completed, and I understand that that will be soon. With my hon. Friend I regret that industrial action has been taken by counter staff, especially as it has been in advance of the Post Office's response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report. My hon. Friend is right to say that good industrial relations in the Post Office are of vital importance.
I shall now deal with the matter of school visits. The restrictions on charges do not prevent a local education authority or a school from seeking voluntary contributions for the benefit of the school or in support of any school activity. If activities are worthwhile, surely parents are willing to contribute to the cost. Local education authorities and schools will have discretion, as before, to help in hardship cases.
I shall now deal with the matter of Barlow Clowes. The parliamentary ombudsman's inquiries are at an early


stage. It is a complicated case and, at present, the time scale for the inquiry is not known. The Department of Trade and Industry is, of course, co-operating fully.
I understand my hon. Friend's impatience about the queues outside the public entrance to the House of Commons. As he knows, this matter is being considered urgently by the Administration and Accommodation Sub-Committee, and I hope that we shall make progress on it early in the new year.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) asked about the future of Harland and Wolff and of Shorts. The Government are aware of the concern about the future ownership of Harland and Wolff, but public ownership has not provided security of employment. The company will survive only if it is competitive, and that is best achieved by applying the disciplines of the private sector. Those are the main reasons why we have decided to privatise Harland and Wolff.
Interest in acquiring the company continues to be shown by two private sector buyers and the possibility of a management-employee buy-out is also being discussed. We regret that we were unable to reach agreement with Mr. Tikkoo over his acquisition of the company and the building of the Ultimate Dream cruise liner. Details of the negotiations must of course remain confidential to the interested parties.
The Government believe that the early return of Shorts to the private sector offers the best prospect for its future. A substantial number of companies have expressed interest and any proposal which would establish the company on a sound financial basis in the private sector would be carefully considered by the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) referred to the possible dangers of car telephones. I am pleased to be able to tell him that no further legislation is necessary to deal with the problem. Under the Road Traffic Act 1972, drivers are liable for prosecution for driving without undue care and attention. I understand that the use of hands-off equipment is recommended by the Department of Transport and that when the highway code is rewritten to take account of the North report next year that recommendation will be included.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) raised the important question of remand prisoners kept in police cells. I have a feeling that he raised that matter some months ago, hut it is an important subject and he is right to come back to it. He cited the figure for 31 October.

Some time before that the problem was even worse. At one time, more than 2,000 prisoners were kept in police cells while on remand. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there has been a substantial fall in the number, and the Government have been tackling the problem with great urgency. I had the figure checked while the hon. Gentleman was speaking and I am informed that today the figure is down to 440, which is a substantial improvement. It is expected to fall still further before Christmas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) raised three questions of love, as he put it, and they were all interesting in their way. The first concerned the imposition of VAT on hospital broadcasting equipment. I guess that most of us have taken part in hospital broadcasts, and I share my hon. Friend's admiration For the volunteers who spend much of their time providing entertainment and information for those in hospital. It is difficult, however, to pick out one worthy cause from a host of worthwhile causes. General relief would be very expensive and—although this argument may not appeal to my hon. Friend—contrary to the arrangements laid down by the European Community.
I agree with my hon. Friend about litter and the environment. He is absolutely right to stress the importance of all local initiatives. Preventing litter is one way in which individual citizens can actively improve their environment, and we should all seek to encourage that.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) asked questions which I cannot answer, but I shall refer his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) raised important matters, but prosecutions are for the Attorney-General, not for me. I shall certainly refer his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) gave his analysis of the position in Bradford. He sounded alarmist and seemed to ignore many of the relevant factors concerned with education.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 22nd December, do adjourn until Tuesday 10th January.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Orders of the Day — Transport (London)

Mr. John Bowis: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the subject of transport in London. I am particularly delighted that I have been lucky in the draw and that the debate has come at this time of the evening. Perhaps my colleagues will agree with that, not least my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply. We have been mercifully treated in that, particularly as, had I been less lucky, we might have found ourselves trying to get home in the early hours of the rush hour tomorrow morning. That would have stressed the problems that we address in this debate.
When I first applied for this debate, road transport was uppermost in my mind, particularly the chaos caused by a variety of incidents and accidents and the standstill that affected our city centre on at least three occasions. Since then, sadly, the train crash in Battersea, outside Clapham junction station, has dominated our thoughts on transport in London. I hope that we can set on one side the details of that incident, because we want to avoid snap judgments on a terrible tragedy of that magnitude.
For example, soon after the crash, we had discussions on the design of the coaches of the train involved. At first it appeared that they were an old design which ran regularly on that line and we seemed to have an answer to the problem. It seemed that all we needed to do was to change the style of the coaches and all would be well. But subsequently we discovered that that coach was only on that line that day because of vandalism at Poole. Vandals had put a cement mixer on the line and prevented the more modern train from passing to Bournemouth, so the older train had come out of store so, let us not jump to conclusions tonight, but wait for the public inquiry.
Certain thoughts must come from that incident and there have been many thoughts on the number of passengers travelling on trains into central London. In shorthand, it is called overcrowding, but that is a difficult term to define. Crowding seems bad enough, so I am not sure what overcrowding is. Thereby hangs another debate—on the numbers that should be standing in excess of the number of seats.
What is clear is that, while there are rules on the number of passengers in excess of seats that can travel on long-distance journeys into London or elsewhere, for journeys of fewer than 20 miles such rules do not apply. Most of the trains that cover my and other inner-London

constituencies travel fewer than 20 miles and so are not covered. Those trains are jam-packed with people travelling over the same lines on which the accident took place and along the same network of signals.
We must look carefully at the number of people travelling on trains. I believe that the first lesson we must learn is that we need not so much more trains—I doubt whether the timetable could accommodate them—as longer ones. However, in many of our suburban stations longer trains will mean that longer platforms are needed, which I hope will be considered.
However, that accident has caused us to look at the safety record of the railways in London. That record is quite remarkable; it is a tribute to the management of and those working for British Rail. We have the busiest junction in the country, perhaps in the world, through which 2,000 trains travel per day, carrying more than 350,000 passengers—at peak times, 1,000 passengers a minute travel into London—yet when I asked people in the Battersea area when an accident last caused loss of life, they could not remember. The last time they could remember casualties in that part of London was when bombs dropped out of the sky over London. Such a record is a tribute to the staff. There have been few severe rail accidents in London. I believe that there have been two others this decade, each with three dead, and then one goes back to Hither Green in the 1960s and Lewisham in the 1950s. One has to look way beyond the last war to find anything that has affected this busy area of London. It is a safe track, which must be reassuring.
The message that I hope to bring to this debate is that, in solving our transport difficulties in London, we must look much more seriously at public transport. We must encourage many more people to use it, which must mean more people using the railways. Of course we need safer railways, and that will come out of the inquiry, but we need a better service to attract people to them. We have a service which is good in parts and improving in parts. We know that in some cases there is a need for staffing, rolling stock and platforms, which I have already mentioned.
I believe that we need, too, new and reopened lines. Snow Hill is perhaps a good example of old railway being brought back into use, and I would like to see others reopened. I think in particular of the west London line. The old Battersea station was not reopened after the war and is still there in embryo over Battersea High street. That line could serve an area of London which is not served by rail or Underground. It could travel across the Thames to Chelsea harbour, another area deserted by public transport. Most important of all, it could go up through West Brompton to Earl's Court and provide, at long last, an underground link from the busiest junction on British Rail—Clapham junction—to Earl's Court. I hope that my hon. Friend will look carefully at that suggestion.
I hope that in studying the road plans in that area, especially the WEIR—the western environmental improvement route—the Minister will ensure that any such plans do not cut off the options for that rail and tube link at West Brompton. I am sure, too, that there will be general agreement that the Chelsea-Hackney link, which has long been a priority of hon. Members and of transport managers in London, should be given the go-ahead.
I believe that British Rail has received more investment cash this decade than in any other in its history. That is


good news, but it is still not sufficient. We need still more resources if we are to continue the shift from road traffic to rail.
There are three ways in which to encourage road users to abandon their vehicles and to use trains. The first, of course, is to allow roads to grind to a halt. Drivers would have no option but to leave their cars and walk or find public transport. The second is to price cars off the road. The third option is to make rail travel more attractive in terms of speed, comfort and price.
The first option, of allowing our roads to grind to a halt, is totally unacceptable. One has only to consider the impact on the emergency vehicles and remember the recent example of those vehicles trying to get to King's Cross and Clapham Junction. One can only price cars off the road if the third option is operative. That third option must take the lead in our policies to cure London's problems. We must have more funds, better used, to provide a better rail service.
Cash is required for all forms of transport—I do not just mean taxpayers' cash, but investment cash in the broadest sense. I do not believe that one should pluck figures out of the air and say that, within the next five years, £2 billion, £5 billion or £10 billion must be spent. That is the wrong way in which to consider the problem. We must accept that London is seizing up and that it needs investment cash.
In recent years we have had a good record of investment, but the current rate of investment is leading not to any improvements in London's transport, but to a standstill position; all too often, that literally means that London's traffic comes to a standstill. That is not good enough. We must have a shopping list of major and minor projects so that people can live and work in London. Once we have that shopping list, we can decide those we must afford to fund, those to which we can ask the private sector to contribute and those that we can suggest that transport passengers fund, if they are prepared to pay the price. We should use all three avenues to achieve the necessary investment.
I believe that we need co-ordination to achieve the improvements we seek. Too often we consider road and rail transport separately. When reaching conclusions on schemes for either branch of our transport system, we often do not consider whether they will work in conjunction with the other branch.
The last thing we need is another example of the Greater London council approach: after 10 years, it produced the central plan, which it then took three years to abandon. We need greater co-ordination, which must come from the Department and its Ministers.
Does my hon. Friend believe that it is sensible to continue to have a Minister with responsibility for roads and a Minister with responsibility for railways? Is it sensible to continue to have that symbolic divide within the Department? That divide is often reflected outside. We need to find better ways in which to divide responsibilities within the Department. That is a tentative suggestion, because I know that it is my hon. Friend's boss, the Secretary of State, whose task it is to work on that.
One way in which we could improve things is to have a Minister for London or a Minister whose responsibilities included London. We should consider whether that means London as it is or whether the area within the M25 should be part of the London transport scene.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about the GLC?

Mr. Bowis: That Minister would be able to bring together the planners for the roads, the railways and the Underground and those responsible for the river and air transport to consider the problems. Recently we had a problem in Battersea when a barge bashed into Battersea bridge. That had a great effect on traffic. When I asked in a parliamentary question the effect that that accident had on traffic flows, I was told that it was the responsibility of the boroughs. That is fine, but Wandsworth happens to be responsible for Battersea bridge, and Kensington and Chelsea is responsible for the Albert bridge. No one has the figures for the effect on various bridges down the river, or a co-ordinated policy to operate if, for example, we needed urgently to bring in the Royal Engineers to put across a temporary bridge.
This co-ordinating role is an important necessity. I hope that the river will receive greater prominence in future planning. There is enormous scope for more riverbus traffic. I hope that such planning will include building piers in suitable places, such as the heliport, to take some traffic off the roads.
I hope that my constituents will not be the only ones to suffer—or benefit—from a heliport. There used to be two of them in London—it is time there were two, or even three, again. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the City of London that it is time it did its bit to provide a heliport service—

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that if there is a heliport it is likely that helicopters will fly from it, and that many people find the noise of helicopters a severe irritant and want fewer, not more, helicopters and few and smaller heliports?

Mr. Bowis: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's worries. That is one reason why I want to spread the load a little, so that not so many flights fly over our end of London and flights can be spread down the river to the east of London. We have a City airport—why not allow helicopters to fly there, too?
Helicopters and riverbuses will provide only some answers to our problems. A great many more people travel on the Underground. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of passengers travelling on it in recent years. That increase, good as it was, will be reversed if we cannot improve the service.
On the eastern border of my constituency—there is no other Underground service in it—is a branch of the Northern line. Numbers of my constituents are served by the stations at Clapham Common, Clapham South and Balham. Those three stations give rise to more than a little of the volume of my mailbag. My constituents refer to a black hole down which trains rarely come. If they come, they tend to be full; while people wait for them they tend to be mugged. If they manage to get on, they tend to get mugged again. While they are on the trains they may get tipped out halfway down the line, because the trains go no further.
I exaggerate a little, but for a purpose. I know that LRT is making enormous efforts to cure the crime and frequency problems of the Northern line, but it is always in the news and it has always been seen as a bad line—yet it is never at the top of the priority list. The line needs staff, rolling stock and station redevelopment, and it needs to be


split in two—and it should be put at the top of the priority list. If that requires private investment, let us pioneer that in the Underground system. Let us put the line out to tender and see whether private enterprise can do what so far public management has not been able to.
In public transport of all sorts, but particularly on the Underground, there is often a problem of staff shortages because of the difficulty of housing at the ends of the line, which tend to be in more expensive areas. We should encourage the railway authorities to provide some sort of housing for their staff. I do not mean the old tied cottage sort of housing. Railwaymen and Underground staff want to own their homes these days like everyone else. The railway authorities should, by themselves or together with housing associations, provide share purchase schemes to enable railway staff—particularly young couples—to start down the line in the housing market.
There need to be more car parks at the outer stations, which people should be encouraged to use.

Mr. Tom Cox: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about housing, but how does he think the London borough of Wandsworth would react to his suggestion, bearing in mind the enormous housing problems there? More than 1,000 houses are empty, waiting to be sold not to local people but to anyone with money. Unfortunately, rail staff do not live in the area and have no commitment to it.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a need for housing for such people. I am sure that Wandsworth council would welcome the scheme that I mentioned, just as it welcomed a similar scheme proposed by Wandsworth health authority to enable its staff to buy their own homes. Housing associations have been involved in such schemes. The public sector need not be involved.
I shall not dwell, because others may, on the options for further development of the Underground, especially the deep central figure of eight line, as it is described, and the private investment that could be waiting to assist in such a project.
From a recent answer by my hon. Friend the Minister, we know that there has been a marginal slowing down of traffic as it enters London in the rush hour. As he rightly said, the figure is not much different from that of 50 years ago, but there has been a move downwards in recent years. Of course, at times the slowdown becomes a full stop. We have heard interesting ideas about building deep tunnels—perhaps with private capital—to solve our road problems. I say firmly to my hon. Friend that we do not need inner link roads carving a way through the best of our housing and through the green spaces and commons of inner London. We should treasure and protect them. The Department should turn down some of the dottier consultants' schemes as soon as possible so that there is no planning blight, which such proposals have caused in the past.
My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt say that we have traffic problems and that they must be solved. We cannot put all the traffic on to rail. We must have good routes so that buses, taxis and bicycles, as well as the cars and commercial vehicles that need to reach the centre of the city, can travel in inner and central London. Surveys show that, although there is much traffic moving round the

inner ring, it is mainly local traffic from one borough to the next. The main problem occurs when that traffic comes up against the traffic trying to get out of London. If the Department considered decommissioning the south circular road, that would help everyone's state of mind.
We need to build roads that go right out of London, and we must consider radical solutions. We should consider tunnelling by deep boring rather than the cut and cover technique, because the former is much more acceptable. Where there is land alongside the railway lines that go out towards the M25, let us use that. Where there is no land, let us build on top of the railway lines. If it is feasible to build a new six-lane motorway above the M25, it must be possible to put roads above our railways. At least that would solve the falling leaves problem in the autumn. We should allow the private sector to put money into such schemes and to charge tolls. I am sure that people would pay to use fast roads in and out of London. That would take traffic off the minor roads of my borough and others in inner London.
Local solutions, including road straightening, road widening, traffic light improvements and better traffic light co-ordination, could help enormously. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend and his Department have done with Wandsworth council. Schemes such as that at Swandon way have made an important contribution to improving the area. But there are still problems in that area, because, although Swandon way has been a great help to traffic travelling west, going east we have the south circular road, Wandsworth road, Battersea Park road, Lombard road from Battersea bridge and Wandsworth bridge roundabout, all those routes funnel into Wandsworth high street and then try to get up West hill, where the road has only one lane each way. Such problems still need to be tackled in west London.
We welcome the measures involving new technology in the Road Traffic Driver Licensing and Information Systems Bill introduced in another place to enable drivers to dodge bottlenecks. Bottlenecks are not always caused by the annoyances that we expect. They are not always caused by broken-down cars, burst water mains, gas leaks or even the antics of the National Union of Students. More often than not the cause is thoughtless, illegal parking on single and double yellow lines on through roads. Too many of our fellow motorists see the single yellow line as a nuisance and the double yellow line as a bloody cheek. We must now say to such drivers, "Enough is enough. You cannot go on blocking London or bringing the city to a halt. You cannot choke our roads."
I should favour the introduction of a red line system on through routes, involving the instant payment of a £200 fine. That would apply to the rush hour and would deter even those people whose fines are paid by their employers. If necessary, I hope that we could make it illegal for employers to pay their employees' fines.
I welcome the continuing efforts that many London boroughs have made, particularly to enable cyclists to travel as safely and as pollution-free as possible through inner London. My final plea, however, is for the disabled who are too often ignored in transport planning in London. I think particularly of route planning, vehicle and rolling stock design and access to railway stations—for example, at Clapham junction with its many staircases and gaps between the platform and the train. We should pay much attention to such points.


I think also of the excellent dial-a-ride scheme, although that is rather inflexible because users' needs sometimes come second to the administrative neatness preferred by London Regional Transport. I understand its desire for neatness, but it should also be flexible. In my area, people can benefit from longer journeys on the dial-a-ride scheme for medical reasons or to go into the west end. A single journey is often worth more than a shorter journey. One long journey to a relative may be worth six visits to a local bingo hall.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to continue his resistance to the European Community straitjacket into which it is trying to put voluntary drivers for the disabled. This morning, I attended my local Golden Age club where a bus was handed over to enable members to get around the borough. Sadly, if the new EEC scheme comes into force, they will have difficulty finding a driver equipped to take them round.
London is a densely populated city and provides jobs for many people who live beyond its boundaries. Its economic growth is creating new jobs, and many firms are looking well beyond London for staff. In a recent article, Professor Buchan said:
Traffic is mostly the product of what goes on in buildings.
That is right. The result of building in London is ever greater demands on transport. Historically, our railways and Underground system had to be built where they could be built. Houses have been built alongside and we cannot therefore build new lines alongside. Our roads were built not for modern vehicles or the present volume of cars, but for the slow-moving, narrow-gauge horse and cart. We must introduce schemes for modern transport in the capital.
Many surface improvements could be made and I have alluded to many of the options. Ultimately, to coin a phrase, the answer lies in the soil. We should be digging deep to look for solutions. We should be tunnelling our way out of this transport prison. I come from a borough that incorporates part of Wimbledon common, and if we dig deep we may, to quote the Wombles song, have an "Underground, overground, travelling", well, if not "free", at least one on which we can travel safely, swiftly, in comfort and at a price that we and our environment can afford.

Mr. John Fraser: It is always nice to hear of someone who sees the light on the road to Damascus. We have just heard from someone who has seen the light on the road to Clapham junction. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) urged greater investment in public transport and its greater use. However, I must remind the hon. Member that he is talking to a Government who have continually decimated the public service grant to the extent that there has been a 40 per cent. cuts in grant. The Government have also abolished the only effective transport authority for London, the Greater London council, and they are determined to break up London Regional Transport.
I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea, as would most people, that our roads are antiquated, that our transport system was designed for the horse and cart and that we now have to live with the car. The same could be said of almost every other capital city. In comparison to other transport systems, we have failed in many respects.
I believe that there should be five principles for transport in London. The first is the freedom to move about London quickly to work, for shopping or for leisure without the need to use the car or spend a fortune. The first principle is good, cheap and effective public transport.
Secondly, I want the freedom to move out of London quickly and efficiently without a car. That means ready access by rail or coach to airports or seaports.
Thirdly, I want people to have the freedom and to enjoy the pleasure of moving around on their own two feet, on one foot or, if one is completely disabled, on no feet. There should be pedestrian areas where people can enjoy moving around in a segregated area. It is an absolute disgrace that we have not pedestrianised Oxford street, Shaftesbury avenue, Regent street and other areas of London. I accept that part of Clapham junction has been pedestrianised along St. John's road. However, in comparison with other major European cities, it is outrageous that London has so few areas designated for the freedom of the pedestrian or for people in wheelchairs. There should be more pedestrianisation, and we should strike the right balance between one's ability to use a car and the ability to use one's feet.
Fourthly, we should have the freedom to move around London by cycle because that is one of the healthiest and least polluting ways of moving around any city. The more we can encourage the use of the bicycle, the better.
Finally, we should have the freedom within the constraints imposed by pedestrianisation and overcrowding to enjoy using our cars. I am not being hypocritical about this. The ability to use a hypermarket with a large parking area represents an immense increase in the freedom of people to use their city. It increases convenience and often produces a big decrease in their cost of living. We must not neglect the car.
Over 50 years in London we have witnessed the inability or unwillingness to make bold decisions about transport or bold investments in transport. There has been too much whining and parochialism and not enough courage. There is evidence of that even today. It is no use arguing for 50 years that traffic should be shifted off the roads and on to rail and then, when we have the opportunity to gain access to a rail network serving the rest of Europe and even Asia, to whine about the possibility of our having to improve domestic access to that network.
We must have more courage and put aside our cowardice about bold transport systems, provided of course that there is proper compensation and that such development is sensibly approached and not bulldozed through. We must be bold from time to time. Having argued for 50 years that rail must take more traffic, we must not run away from that prospect the moment it means adding an extra platform to our local railway station. I hope that we shall be bolder and more courageous in tackling London's transport system.
We have suffered also from undue restrictions. It is outrageous that our major fruit and vegetable market, new Covent Garden, on the edge of my borough, is not served by water access. Many of us understand the reason—restrictions on use of the river. But again that is outrageous, and it is an enormous waste of a potential transport facility.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend recall that, at the public inquiry into that scheme,


its promoters promised river access, and that there was the prospect of rail access as well? That was discussed during the debate on the Covent Garden Market (Financial Provisions) Bill 1977, when my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and I nearly divided the House. Nevertheless, the property developers—or some-one—reneged on both undertakings.

Mr. Fraser: I am sure that that is so. I regret that lack of foresight—

Mr. Spearing: Such a facility was foreseen, but it was reneged on.

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend makes his point.
In the past, London docks were destroyed by the inability of heavy lorries to reach the dockside. That is one reason why so much employment in central London was lost. About 20 years ago, it took three days to get a lorry carrying an export order from Barker and Dobson's factory in Clapham to the London docks. The docks were moved elsewhere because of the essential need for proper road communications.
Underground construction since the end of the last war has been pathetic. There was an immense general building programme, but in the past 50 years we have seen only the building of the Victoria line as far as Brixton—and it cannot go further because it is grossly overcrowded to the point of danger—and that of the Jubilee line. Compared with the massive programme of underground construction that was undertaken in the 1920s and 1930s, there has been gross neglect of investing in the system.
There should be duplication of the Northern line and of the Victoria line. Lines should be constructed to destinations such as Crystal Palace and beyond the Elephant and Castle, where the land has been reserved for the last 50 years, to Camberwell green. There should also be an underground link to Lewisham, perhaps using the misnamed east London line—really it is the south-east London line
There should also be an end to the extremely dangerous overcrowding. I am reminded of a Spike Milligan poem:
A little sardine saw a submarine
And took a look through the peephole.
'Come, come, come', said the sardine's mum,
It's only a tin for the people.
One can say exactly the same of any sardine seeing a train on the Northern line.
I want to see massive investment in London's transport system, together with a substantial increase in pedestrianisation—achieved with the right balance between that and one's necessary and pleasurable use of the car. Our present choice is the choice between the cattle truck and the stampede. We must have a better London transport system. Without it we shall have a system that does not work at all.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that it was essential to have swift access to the Channel tunnel, and that people should not whine if their properties were affected because full compensation should have been paid. Alas, three of the four proposed routes from London to the Channel tunnel touch my constituency, and—as I am sure the hon.

Gentleman is aware—there is considerable apprehension about the building of new lines. The Clapham junction railway tragedy, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) referred in so ably opening the debate, has reawakened the alarm of those who fear the mixing of high-speed trains from the continent with existing suburban lines, and we must give much more thought to that problem.
It is always pleasant to be able to say "I told you so". In our debates on the abolition of the Greater London council, while I broadly supported the Government in their abolition of that elephantine body, I said that successor bodies would be necessary to co-ordinate traffic in London. The same point was made forcefully in a leading article in The Times the other day, after a notable series of articles on traffic problems in London:
For the organization of London's transport to be improved does not require the Greater London Council to be reconstituted".
What was needed, said the article, was a new executive with
both operational independence from the vested interests in the Department of Transport and powers to require British Rail and London Regional Transport to co-ordinate their plans and function in co-operation … A new London Transport Executive could go a long way in relieving the police of responsibility for traffic control and reinvigorating the warden service. Most important, it could standardize policy on parking and penalties across the capital.
We desperately need a new transport executive in London, and co-ordination is needed in particular to deal with obstruction, traffic choke points and parking. The main obstruction offenders are the statutory authorities which dig up roads, and builders who block highways while carrying out construction work. Of course the telephone, gas and water authorities must have the right to dig up the roads to carry out repairs, but I believe that they should have to pay for that right, and that the payments should be sufficiently graded for every pressure to be put on those who dig up the roads to return them to operation as quickly as they can by working night and day.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said that in years to come, possibly by the beginning of the next century, the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds will provide us with a great new computer-controlled electronic warning system that will tell bus and other drivers about obstructions ahead and divert them around those obstructions. With a little thought and organisation and the expenditure of tens of thousands of pounds rather than tens of millions of pounds, and the provision of a few quickly-produced signs, I think that we could have a warning system now.
Twice during the past month when parking near Hanger Lane I have been caught in horrendous traffic jams at normally slack periods during the weekend because the authorities had closed two of the three lanes without providing any warning signs. When I drove back to London on Sunday I could have got into exactly the same sort of jam in exactly the same place, but because I was listening to LBC I heard a traffic warning that again the three lanes had been reduced to one. No attempt had been made, however, by the authorities to provide warning signs on the roads coming into London which would have enabled drivers to take alternative routes and avoid the traffic jam. I believe that an adequate warning of road works could be provided now and that the new traffic


executive should be responsible for traffic signposting. Sadly, south London has the worst traffic signposting in any major European city.
A number of traffic checkpoints in London have been made a great deal worse because local councils have closed side streets, thus forcing more traffic on to main roads. During the past few weeks my regular route to my constituency from the Palace of Westminster has been made virtually impassable by the action of the local borough council. I have been pushed back on to a main traffic artery. I am wholly in favour of protecting quiet back streets, but that can be done by the use of sleeping policemen and road humps that slow down traffic without completely closing streets to traffic. Kensington and Chelsea council has adopted a very enlightened attitude towards road humps. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to keep the road hump regulations under regular review and to encourage their wider use. London needs a central traffic executive to override the powers of local councils that want to close side streets.
London desperately needs a sensible parking policy. Traffic flows and road safety would be enormously improved if illegal parking near street corners could be stopped. It would be difficult to stamp it out completely, but if people who parked illegally at street corners had to pay a fine that was two or three times greater than the normal parking fine, I believe that this practice, which hinders traffic flows and endangers road safety, could be reduced.
The central traffic authority should have direct control over some traffic wardens so that traffic choke points such as the notorious junction of Kensington High street and Kensington Church street could be patrolled regularly and any vehicle that stopped there would be given a parking ticket immediately. The central traffic executive should also be responsible for encouraging the provision of more off-street parking. We need greater subsidies for underground car parking in some of our London squares. In the House, we benefit from one of the best underground car parks in the world, and the central traffic executive should encourage the wider use of off-street parking places.
Before the war Mussolini gained great praise because it was alleged that he made the trains run on time. I believe that enormous dividends can be gained by any politician who can solve London's traffic problems.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that the Front Bench speeches will begin at 11.10 pm. It is a very short debate. I suggest that five-minute speeches will enable many hon. Members to be called.

Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Popular): I have spoken many times about the lack of overall planning required to improve public transport in my constituency, particularly in view of the enormous developments in Docklands. The building of the Docklands highway will encourage cars to come into the area and choke it up if public transport is not massively increased. However, that is not the subject on which I wish to speak tonight.
I wish to speak about a subject which many women in my constituency and many of their fathers, partners and sons would like me to raise—the safety of women on public transport in London. Only 35 per cent. of women in

London hold driving licences—half as many as men. "Women's Transport News" researched the matter and found that only 60 per cent. of those with driving licences have access to a car and 70 per cent. are always dependent on public transport and lifts. "Ask any Woman"—based on a research project in London by an organisation called Women Against Rape—showed that 80 per cent of women in London do not have their own cars. Some have motorbikes, but two thirds of them have no access to any motorised transport. Another source, Pensioners' Link, showed that only one in 10 women over 65 drives a car. Transport Today showed men and women from black and ethnic minorities groups use public transport about 50 per cent. more than white people.
It is quite clear that women have much less access to cars and have far greater need than men for public transport, and that black women need public transport even more than white women. It is extremely important to all women to be able to travel safely.
Unfortunately, on or waiting for public transport is one of the most common places for women to be attacked. Another danger is when women accept lifts from semi-strangers. Possibly young women who have been to a party and who have missed the last bus or face a long wait at bus stops or a long walk to the tube in the dark feel that accepting a lift is the lesser evil, and that decision often leads to an attack. Sometimes young women hitch-hike or accept lifts due to lack of money. That is all too common, given the present level of unemployment.
"Ask any Woman" found that three quarters of women felt uneasy, frightened or very frightened or never went out after dark. Women of all ages have said to me that they never go out after dark. That affects their social lives and their choice of jobs and job opportunities.
Women fear different categories of London public transport. British Rail closed-compartment trains are feared most by women, followed by the Underground. Women say that if they are attacked on an Underground train they cannot get off until the train stops. After getting off, one is in a maze and cannot see round corners. One has to run up the stairs and there is no one to go to for help. It can be a nightmare. Seventy per cent. of all women think that it is unsafe to use British Rail or the Underground or to wait at a bus stop at night.
Winvisible and other disability organisations say that disabled women are particularly vulnerable. If one cannot see, hear or run well and has to ask for physical assistance from people who may take advantage, one is particularly vulnerable and may be singled out for attack. That applies also to older women, pregnant women and women with young children who cannot move fast.
Another danger is one-person-operated doors. Again, that is particularly dangerous for older people, pregnant women and women with small children. Last year there were 300 officially recorded incidents involving people trapped in the centre doors of buses in London. At least three people have died. If I had more time, I could supply many quotations from people saying that they fear those doors and one-person-operated buses.
Transport cuts are harming women in particular since they use public transport most. Eighty per cent. of women interviewed by the GLC women's committee said that they wanted bus conductors arid station staffing. I am disappointed that the Docklands light railway in my constituency has no staff at stations. The cuts in bus routes mean longer waits at dark bus stops and more


hitch-hiking. Every cut in services means that more women are attacked. The same applies to rises in fares. Fares for women are disproportionately higher because women do more short journeys.
Many factors make women feel unsafe. For example, women are frightened by empty platforms and carriages, standing alone at bus stops, not seeing round corners in subways, being unsure of where to go, knowing that no help is at hand in case of trouble, having to wait a long time, and long corridors in subways resulting from the bad design of stations.
Many positive measures can be taken but they all cost money. Money must be spent so that women are not

trapped in their homes and can live full and proper lives. Money should be spent on good lighting and visibility. We should reduce the circumstances which result in women having to wait. That means frequent train and bus services. There should be visual display units, radios, alarm systems, good indication of when trains are coming, better positioning of bus stops, improvements in the signposting on the Underground, more exits on the Underground to reduce the distance that women have to walk and rationalisation of passageways. There should also be an absence of provocative advertising and the removal of sexist, racist and violent graffiti immediately. Above all, there should be adequate, well-trained staff to observe, advise and assist passengers.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The House is agreed that there should be more co-ordination. There used to be. When the GLC was formed it had overall responsibility for strategic planning. Whatever one thought of the members—I was a member of the planning and traffic committee for some years—there was a skilled and professional team at work. That team has been broken up and does not appear to be in the Department of the Environment or the Department of Transport. That is to be deplored.
There have been major strategic errors. For example, 50,000 people are working at the Canary Wharf development without there having been a public inquiry or a proper planning application. That is a sin of commission. Proposals for the Channel tunnel must be decided by British Rail, but there should be an inquiry before a decision is taken and a Bill is brought before the House. There has been no strategic planning, for which Conservative Members have been asking.
In the early 1980s, Sir Peter Parker suggested an imaginative cross-rail plan for London to the Department of Transport but received no response, probably because it would not pay for itself. If it had been accepted, it would have been built by now and would have forestalled the present overcrowding.
Of course there is overcrowding, but much of it is due to Government policies. There has been investment in new stock, but railway staff say that for every four coaches taken out of service only three are being replaced. A driver writing in Modern Railways in September 1988 said:
Something unheard of is now arising—drivers resigning…July sees the cancellation of over 100 trains on Southern Region due to staff shortage.
Overcrowding is often a result of cancelled trains or trains that are too short because of an insufficiency of coaches. Financial pressure on British Rail management, especially on Southern region, is unrealistic, and there is a lack of cushions in the performances being demanded of it. The east Putney up-spur, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), was electrified in 1915 but has now been lifted. Such nonsense must stop.
A problem in my constituency illustrates the Government's approach to transport in London. London Buses is being broken into 15 different firms. Pressure on staff to work harder for lower wages is a controversial subject. There was an unofficial strike at West Ham garage about three weeks ago because the men were being asked to work longer hours and cover more mileage for the same pay. They were not too worried about pay because it had been agreed in negotiations, but they were worried about passenger safety and the fact that they were becoming too tired to give a proper service, especially with London's congestion. That occurred because of the Government's policy to break London Buses into 15 different firms, with conditions of service that worry the staff very much. The safety issue arose directly from the Government's pressure for less public money to be spent on public transport in London.
I hope that the Fennell report will be debated in the not too distant future, so I will leave my comments on it until then, but much criticism has been made of the Underground. The Northern line was mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea. I have a cutting from The Times of 2 December 1924, which said that a new chapter

had been opened in respect of railways in south London. It said that the city and south London line was being extended and continued:
The service to be opened on the line will consist of 26 trains an hour in each direction between Clapham Common and Camden Town.
I wonder whether there are anything like 26 trains an hour running today.
A controversial plan was introduced the summer before last for one-person operation on the Piccadilly line. I have grave doubts about the safety of that scheme, as had a driver writing in The Guardian on 22 November 1988, who said:
If the Railway Inspectorate got it wrong on King's Cross, what grounds have we to believe that they got it right on deep level tube One Person Operation.
In a reply to a question that I tabled, the then Minister with responsibilities for railways said:
These plans have been shown and demonstrated to the Railway Inspectorate, which is satisfied that they will provide a proper level of safety."—[Official Report, 24 July 1987; Vol. 120, c. 607.]
I cannot agree with the one-person operation on the Piccadilly line or, in particular, the controversial proposals for delays and difficulties.
The Government are at fault for not providing a comprehensive planning service for traffic and transport in London. It was available under the GLC, when road, rail and other forms of transport were co-ordinated. The Government are irresponsible in their financial pressures on British Rail and London Transport. In the end, such pressures prejudice safety standards if only by pressing staff at the difficult end of the service to cut corners and to risk tiredness and all the other things about which we have read in the newspapers in the past few days. That comes directly from the client-contractor basis which the Government are pressing upon staff at every level. It is not a concomitant of safety, as we have seen in recent incidents. The Government must change their minds and think seriously about the matter, otherwise public safety will continue to be at risk.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As the remaining time is short, my remarks will be brief.
If we were honest about it, we would agree that public transport and transport generally in London is in absolute chaos. Traffic speeds are the lowest that they have been since the first world war. Overcrowding on Underground trains is at danger point for most of the day. Bus journeys are longer and slower than they have been for the past 30 years. The Government are spending less in proportion and in real terms on supporting public transport in London than at any time since the war, and they propose to spend less in the future. Their record on public transport in London is deplorable. They have abolished the GLC, they have refused to set up a public transport authority for London, and they now insist on London Regional Transport making a profitable return on its operation. No public transport undertaking anywhere in Europe or in most of the United States makes any return of the sort that is being sought from British Rail and London Transport.
Although we are not here to debate the details of what happened at Clapham and King's Cross, things are beginning to show that, when there is a shortage of staff—they have been dismissed to make ends meet—


insufficient cleaning of stations and insufficient maintenance of trains, danger is the order of the day, and the result is death and danger for the travelling public. The Minister should listen carefully to what the people of London are saying about that.
I ask the Minister a couple of specific questions, because there is no time for me to say all that I want to say. His Department employs about 14,000 people. I understand that it employs a mere 69 people to study possible future rail developments in this country, even fewer studying pedestrianisation and pedestrian matters, and even fewer studying water-borne transport. The vast majority are obsessed with road building and road building schemes.
Is it sensible, through road assessment studies, to propose building motorways in London which, excluding land costs, will cost £14 million a mile, when the hon. Gentleman could be improving and developing public rail and bus services throughout London? Surely to God we will not solve London's transport problems by encouraging into London more and more commuter traffic, which is heavily subsidised by tax relief and causes untold chaos and pollution in constituencies such as mine, and creates greater traffic jams in central London.
I ask the Minister to say now that the road assessment studies are to be dropped and that he recognises the massive opposition that exists in my constituency, in Hornsey and Wood Green, in Finchley and, no doubt, in his own constituency, to the very notion of going back to motorway building in London. People are demanding a sane, safe and sensible transport policy for London. That must mean the development of a public transport system, investment in railways, and an end to the crazy financial relationship between the Government, British Rail and London Regional Transport. That relationship demands endless staff cuts to pursue the mythical profitable return that they cannot achieve, and danger is the result.
We live in a large city—the capital city of this country. Its public transport system is deplorable. I hope that the Minister will recognise that priority must be given to ending the road building plans and developing rail plans.
Will the Minister put pressure on British Rail not to make the decision on the siting of the Channel tunnel terminal—which I understand it is due to make early in January—without going into the environmental impact studies and without properly assessing Stratford? British Rail may do that because it is determined to develop at King's Cross, because that is where it can achieve the best rate of return and it has been told that its rail plans must be self-financing.
Will the Minister assure me that he will lift the blight that extends over my area because of the road-building plans and put pressure on British Rail not to allow the development of Gillespie park and Gillespie sidings near Finsbury Park? They are valuable open spaces that have been usefully developed by local children and the local community. Will he further accept the Finsbury Park community group's plans for Isledon road sidings, which provide a mix of public open space, housing and jobs for local industries and for local people, rather than continuing to put pressure on British Rail to achieve the greatest possible return on all its land sales, as that policy

is damaging many inner-London communities and preventing the creation of open spaces, decent housing or valuable local jobs?

Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for initiating the debate. The expressions of dissatisfaction with London's transport have been fairly constant from both sides of the House—perhaps uniquely in my 15 or so years in this place. No one will blame the Minister personally. We probably all suspect that at heart he disagrees with the fundamental philosophy expressed so often by the Secretary of State—that there can be no central planning for London's transport. Yet the speeches from both sides of the House—again, this is probably unique—have suggested that that is just what is wrong with London's transport and traffic. The market has palpably failed as it inevitably must to solve the problems of London's traffic. [Interruption.] I am reminded that it has probably made them worse.
I shall not urge a re-formed Greater London council on the Government, because they would immediately reject such a course but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) reminded us, much of the good work done by the technical people as well as the elected representatives in the GLC has been undone since the council was abolished. It has been undone to one purpose—to save money. That will not come as a blinding revelation to hon. Members on either side of the House.
When the Bill to strip the GLC of responsibility for London's traffic was before us back in 1984, there were numerous exchanges across the Floor of the House about the Bill's impact and about the undemocratic and eventually unjust solutions—solutions that were also uneconomic, because they failed to alleviate London's traffic problems—that the Bill would bring about. All our suggestions were rejected, largely contemptuously, by the then Secretary of State, who is now Secretary of State for the Environment. Talking about London's transport problems and his solutions for the future, the right hon. Gentleman said:
There are great possibilities for reducing the amount that will have to be taken from the ratepayers by reducing the cost to London Transport and, therefore, the subsidy paid for it. The more I hear about the potential for saving, the more I believe that that is the aspect on which to concentrate. That is where the ratepayers' relief, in part, will come."—[Official Report, 9 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 34.]
The obvious result of that policy and philosophy was seen in the wreckage scattered across Clapham junction a week or so ago. It is seen outside this building on most nights of the week, and on the roads into our city on most mornings. Over the past decade the Government have been obsessed more with saving money than with resolving transport problems, so those troubles lie directly at their door. That philosophy and policy is responsible for the present chaos.
The Government deliberately try to evade any long-term commitment to greater expenditure on public transport in this city and elsewhere. Five years ago they set up the Serpell report which said in chapter 2(22) that there was no possibility of any growth in commuter traffic over the next few years. That shows how wrong those self-styled experts were. In the past six years the number of people using the Underground has increased by 50 per cent. and the number of those using Network SouthEast services by 25 per cent. Each day between 7 am and 10 am 900,000


people enter central London by rail, and over the next 10 years peak demand is expected to increase by as much as 30 per cent. and off-peak demand by 45 per cent. Surely the Minister will not tell us that increases of that size will be catered for by private capital and that somehow people in the private sector will come forward with billions of pounds to save us from traffic chaos on public transport and our roads. That lack of central planning has contributed enormously to our present problems.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) concentrated almost exclusively on the chaos on our roads. He may be interested to know that the number of vehicles entering the city during peak hours can be as high as 50,000 and that more than 70 per cent. of all vehicles on London's roads are cars and no fewer than 43 per cent. of those are company cars. No other country in the world has the company car perk to the extent that we do. Inevitably, if people are given company cars as part of what they call a remuneration package, they will use those cars. They will take the view that if someone else is paying, they might as well sit in some degree of subsidised comfort, rather than join the rest of us in London's congested, expensive, overcrowded public transport.
In previous years the excuse for our enormous number of company cars was that salaries were low and taxation high. This Government have taken care of all that. As they continuously boast, taxes are among the lowest in Europe and for directors remuneration is among the highest. Yet 43 per cent. of cars continue to enter London in the rush hour, subsidised directly by a particular company. It does not make any sense. I hope that the belated efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax company cars to prevent the present congestion will continue.
The Government's regular reply to my hon. Friends and others about the lack of investment in the railway system is that investment has never been higher than it is now. That is another myth and is just not true. On 16 December there was a letter in the Financial Times headed "Investment in the railways" from a Mr. John Wells. I presume that he is not the former Conservative Member. He describes himself as a member of the Faculty of Economics at Cambridge university. He wrote:
following the period 1981–1984, in which, for four consecutive years, the lowest-ever levels of investment since the Second World War were recorded, there has indeed been a strong recovery in railway investment in recent years. Nevertheless, railway investment in 1987 (the latest year for which data are available) was considerably below that for the period 1975–1979 as well as for 1965—66.
I do not have time to go into the figures in detail, but I shall send them to the Department of Transport. I hope that we shall then hear the end of the myth that investment under this Government has been higher than at any other time in the country's history.
The Secretary of State for Transport said that the terms of the inquiry into the Clapham junction disaster, headed by Mr. Anthony Hidden, QC, are to be the same as those under which Mr. Desmond Fennell, QC, was appointed to inquire into the King's Cross disaster. The House will not need reminding that Mr. Fennell decided that vital questions about such matters as staff morale and investment were ultra vires the inquiry. However, it did not stop him expressing the view that such lack of investment and low morale had no direct bearing on the King's Cross disaster.

Mr. Spearing: Without any evidence.

Mr. Snape: Mr. Fennell admitted that he had no evidence.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that those vital matters will be considered by Mr. Hidden and that we will be able to see the impact of low investment on tragedies such as that of Clapham junction. Will the Under-Secretary tell us why half the trains using the busiest junction in the world—not just in Europe—on the former London-south western railway were controlled by a signal box more than 50 years old? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assure us that Mr. Hidden will be allowed to consider those vital points.
I make a plea to the Under-Secretary, even at this late stage and after hearing so many excuses from the Government, that proper investment will be found to, at least, allow us to move some way towards solving London's public transport problems.
I shall repeat the words of Miss Lynda Lee-Potter in the Daily Mail of Wednesday 14 December. That is not a publication that is normally over-sentimental to those who work in the railway industry, nor is it one that has traditionally supported the Labour party, but Miss Lynda Lee-Potter said:
I only hope this"—
that is the Clapham disaster—
is an awesome warning to both them"—
that is British Rail management—
and the Government that they can't make a lottery out of people's lives, that money has to be made available and made available now.
Paul Channon can rationalise 'til he's blue in the face, but compared with other countries the money poured into our railways is pitiful. We once had a great, fine and enviable system that is becoming shoddy and shameful and breaking the hearts of the long-service, loyal workforce.
No Member of the Opposition could put it better. Some months ago I asked the Secretary of State to consider appointing Miss Lynda Lee-Potter a member of the British Railways Board, and I repeat that plea tonight. It appears that she knows a damn sight more about the transport problems of London and this country than anybody at the Dispatch Box has for the past 10 years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): One hundred years ago, William Morris, a Socialist Utopian, wrote these words:
having said good night very amicably, took his way home by himself to a western suburb, using the means of travelling which civilisation has forced upon us like a habit. As he sat in that vapour-bath of hurried and discontented humanity, a carriage of the underground railway, he like others, stewed discontentedly".
The first thing that the comrade did when he woke up 115 years or more later was to cheer about the fact that the underground railway had been abolished. I am glad that the Labour party now supports it. It is important that we take London's transport opportunities—

Mr. Tony Banks: "News from Nowhere".

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, "News from Nowhere". I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. Instead of shouting out as if he were still on Capital radio, as he was earlier, it would be sensible if we tried to follow the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who followed my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in introducing this debate, on the serious sequence of movement in London.


It is plain that transport in London is becoming more and more important and is becoming more popular among newspaper writers—I shall come back to Lynda Lee-Potter in a moment. If there had been a strategic planning authority in London in 1982 and if it had asked London's national newspapers, then congregated in Fleet street, what transport arrangements they wanted for their journalists and production staff to get to and from work and for delivering their newspapers, the answer would have been rail. In the past six years, however, every national newspaper has left Fleet street. Their staffs cannot use public transport and they are trying to drive to and from Wapping, the Isle of Dogs, Farringdon road and Barkers. They are now discovering that that is not possible. I welcome the fact that the newspapers are now facing up to the problems of London transport network, just as others have already done.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea for the broad and serious way in which he introduced the debate. It is now common ground that movement in and out of London must take place predominantly by rail. My hon. Friend drew attention to the safety record of the railways.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked about the terms of reference of the inquiry into the disaster at Clapham. The aim of the inquiry, as my right hon. Friend has said, is to establish the facts and to ensure that it never happens again. The terms of reference are similar to those for the Fennell inquiry and should be wide enough to cover all the relevant matters. If there is any addition to them, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman or make sure that his questions are followed up.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is present because what he said was very unfair. He knows perfectly well that the Parker report—I am grateful to him for lending me the booklet so that I can emphasise my point—said:
The purpose of this discussion paper is to test public reaction and to establish the views of relevant authorities before deciding whether to undertake additional work.
I understand that the cross-rail study is being considered as part of the central London rail study.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: No, I have only about four minutes to answer a long debate.
The point about safety is that 5,200 people a year die on our roads. The more movement we can transfer to the railways, while maintaining the safety on the Underground and overground, the better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Labour party cheers, but that should not be a matter of dispute. If Labour Members are cheering because they believe that radial commuting, which needs to rely on the railways, is a new or controversial idea to be mooted by either side of the House, they have not listened to our debates.
If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) uses the word "motorway" as part of the assessment studies that are not purely road assessment studies, he is deliberately using a word that has been cast out by the Government. His only purpose in doing so must be to mislead, and I hope that he will not do it again. It probably was not intentional, but the word "motorway" does not work with the assessment studies. If the hon. Gentleman stopped chirping that word, his constituents would learn more from him and me.
It is clear from the stage 1 reports that the Londoner's needs are taken into account. As hon. Members have said, perhaps it would be a good idea if we had more lanes going out of London than coming in.
It is also important to recognise what was said about the rail links to the Channel tunnel and the rest of Europe. I was asked if I would oppose any new railway line going into a tunnel in my constituency. I said that I would not, and that it was impossible to work for railways and then to say that those lines should not come into London. As the hon. Member for Norwood has said, we must be bold and, although trying to ensure that the right choice is made and the compensation is correct, we must openly state that it is necessary at times to build railways and that that is not always convenient. We will not get extra movement on the railways in Europe or in Britain without paying a price for those lines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has spoken of the renewed use of the west London line. I have looked at some of the nice Christmas cards from Parkland walk, which says that it is opposed to road and rail schemes. But we must be prepared to accept that railways will cause some discomfort to people along the lines.
We lead the world, certainly Europe, in road safety and we lead the world in the provision for the disabled, but there is more to be done. Let us remember our Airbus service, Taxicard, dial-a-ride and the availability of wheelchairs in our taxis—not to mention our minibuses.
I say to all in the Labour party: they should contact their friends in Europe to get across the point about the minibus driver licensing regulations—how a minor adaptation to move from an additional test to an assurance of safety, perhaps asking people to wait two years before they drive a minibus, will enable us to protect the 85,000 minibuses in this country, 11,000 of which have wheelchair adaptations on the back. Another 40,000 or so are used for the elderly, for children, for scout and Church groups and for common interest groups such as students. Then we shall be likely to preserve safe transport on the roads.
We want to protect safety on the roads, on the Underground and on the railways. We want to improve safety on the roads and to ensure that London prospers with greater movement, as well as environmental relief and road casualty reduction.

Orders of the Day — Community Care

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: This debate is about community care. Although the Government have continually promised reports and proposals on this subject, because of problems with the policy towards it, there were no proposals in the Queen's Speech to legislate on the problems in the community care scheme, despite the publication of the Griffiths report earlier this year.
I want to record some of the criticisms of the scheme made by some of the carers and organisations involved in the problems faced by people. I also want to discuss the Griffiths report's proposals and the fundamental problems of the community care scheme.
The Audit Commission review, published in December 1986, laid out the principles of community care, with which we would not disagree. It went on to describe the policies of successive Governments—but what has actually happened has been quite different. The Audit Commission made a series of proposals. The first concerned short-term funding to avoid the long-term waste of two systems that work inadequately and struggle to survive in parallel. The second related to how the social security system links with the community care policy. The review was concerned to ensure that there were no "perverse incentives" involved in encouraging residential, rather than community, care or provision for people to make a profit—I add, out of someone else's need. Thirdly, the Audit Commission recommended a more rational organisational structure for community care policy.
I want to deal with the transition from long-stay hospitals of mentally or physically handicapped people, and with those who have remained in the community with their families. What services are provided for them?
In July 1987, I received representations from the Avon group of societies for the mentally handicapped. It expressed its worry about the development of a two-tier system of caring for people in the community. I contacted my county council, which explained—this seems to be a common pattern across the country—that the policy and plans are quite well developed for services for people who are leaving hospital. Finance is not always available, but the employment plans are beginning to be put in place. It went on to say that there is no Government money to provide comparable services for people who have always lived in the community. That includes the cost of respite care, residential care and day provision which runs into many millions of pounds.
In my constituency surgeries—many others will have experienced this—it is especially distressing to hear the stories of women, who tend to be the carers in our society, explaining the difficulties with their children who have reached the age of 19. There is no provision for their care in the community. The Down's Syndrome Association stressed that point. It said that the money available is directed to the transfer of patients from long-term hospitals and to speeding the closure of such hospitals. Yet 52 per cent. of the mentally handicapped already live at home in the community, and not enough services are being provided for them.
I do not say that people should stay in long-term hospitals. But if we are to have a community care policy, it must be exactly that. The Avon Mental Handicap Action Group wrote to me saying that the closure of

long-stay hospitals was going well, but that the same could not be said of the integration of the former patients into the community. That was not to say that the community had rejected those people, but that the intensive support, care and encouragement which they need is not being provided.
Another letter from the Down's Syndrome Association said:
More and more parents are discovering that there is nothing at all on offer for their mentally handicapped sons and daughters as they leave school, and no adequate respite-care to make life endurable. Also as the subnormality hospitals close, there is no long-term care to replace it for the severely handicapped already living at home. Such a crisis-orientated service adds to the already intolerable burden that these parents have to bear. The most severely handicapped and multiply handicapped people are the worst-served. As they grow into large adults, their parents are becoming older and less able to cope.
Many families who are incredibly devoted to their members must put up with inadequate services which lead to frustration, demoralisation and—in some people's lives—panic and fear about what will happen to their children.
The National Schizophrenia Fellowship was so worried that earlier this year it launched a nationwide campaign, making the point that the transfer of people into the community without sufficient: support services was causing greater pain, more anguish, more suicides, more sick people, more people ending up in prison and more people sleeping rough on the streets.
I received a letter from a parent making representations on behalf of her 14-year-old son, who suffers from Down's syndrome. She said:
In March this year a group of parents of mentally handicapped young adults formed the Avon Mental Handicap Action Group. We are extremely worried about our `adult' children's future. Avon County Council is in a desperate situation—we are told by all three parties"—
Avon county council is run by a Tory-SL,D administration—
that there are no resources to provide the residential and respite care so desperately needed for mentally handicapped adults living in the community and no resources to provide the extra day-care facilities".
The distress that this situation is causing aged parents who are still caring for their children is beyond belief. That mother, as a younger parent, believes that her child has a right to a life of his own and she can see no hope for enriching his life in the future if those facilities are not provided.
After reviewing the services available, the Bristol community health council concluded in its 1987 annual report that, although it strongly supported—as I and the Labour party do—the principles that underpin community care, sadly, the reality is very different.
I want to remind the House that 3·25 million women in Britain are unpaid carers. A carer is someone who looks after a friend or relative who has a physical or mental disability or is ill or impaired by infirmity. Most carers are women. Without their help, the health and social services simply could not cope, but what about the health needs of the carers themselves? Caring can sometimes be a lifelong responsibility and can take a tremendous toll of the carer's life. Carers are six times more likely to suffer a breakdown in mental health and many carers are themselves elderly with failing health. To leave them struggling in the community is simply unforgivable.
Shelter compiled an extensive report on Bristol outlining the problems that people who are discharged


from hospital face in trying to find housing in the city. The problem cannot be shrugged off by saying that it is the fault of an inadequate housing authority. There is already a serious housing problem in Bristol and those people, who may have been in hospital for a long time, are tossed out into the world and are not receiving the support that they need.
Let me quote two cases. The first is a couple who are both ex-patients from a mental hospital and have been brought out into the community. Their income dropped substantially as a result of the housing benefit changes and they find it difficult to cope financially even at the best of times—who does not find it difficult on social security?—but they now find themselves living in fear of building up debts.
Another couple said to me:
We find it very difficult to manage our money having spent a lot of our lives in hospital. We have just about managed to pay off all our bills until this year and we simply do not know how we shall cope.
The income of another ex-patient, who lives in a house as a lodger, dropped from £49 a week to £41·70 a week as a result of housing benefit changes. He should pay £40 a week for board and lodging, but his landlady, out of the goodness of her heart, gave him back pocket money to help him get by. She has taken on the responsibility of a carer and is saving the state work, although such a demand should not be made of such a person.
Three people discharged from hospital in 1976 ran up enormous electricity bills in my constituency. I received details of the case from the Bristol Society of the Mentally Handicapped which pointed out how those people had been deserted by every agency simply because there was no clear line of responsibility as to who was the care manager.
In June, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State asking him specific questions about proposals for improving care in the community. I was told that the Griffiths report had undertaken a review of community care policy and that when the proposals were available—they were actually published on 16 March—they would be considered jointly with the recommendations from the committee on residential care and proposals would be brought forward in due course.
How long is "due course"? We have had a Queen's Speech. Where are the proposals? The Griffiths report proposed that a Minister should be responsible for these matters. It also stressed the changes in the responsibilities of social services. It made recommendations about resources and about the role of the National Health Service. It recognised the carers, their unpaid role and their need to be supported. When all that information is available, why are there no proposals?
I have many criticisms of the Griffiths report. The philosophy behind community care was not properly investigated, and there are some errors. The balance between the public and private sectors must be examined. There is no place for the profit motive in the care and health of people in our community. That is not stated clearly in the Griffiths report.
People are being transferred from mental hospitals and long-stay hospitals without the necessary service developments in the area health authorities to support those people in the community. The whole emphasis of the strategy so far has been on the shift of responsibility from

the National Health Service to local authorities. However, that strategy is cruelly undermined by the Government, who continue to batter local authority finance around the head so that the authorities do not have the money to make the necessary provision.
The central problem is, who has the responsibility of the community care manager? That responsibility falls between two stools. For example, a constituent of mine was resident in a private residential home which closed because the owners decided that they did not want to run it any longer. My constituent was found a place in another residence and was transferred. However, none of his belongings were transferred and were left packed up in the other home. No arrangements were made to transfer his social security, so he had no money. His social worker was away on holiday. I am not decrying social workers for taking holidays and in this case I understand that the co-ordination failed.
The problem in the private sector is that private sector residential provision comes and goes all the time. There are lots of reasons for that, but what happens to the residents in those circumstances? Who is responsible for ensuring that they are adequately provided for and transferred to new accommodation?
We must also consider the training of staff in community care. There is no central personnel policy. We must not simply transfer people; we must transfer the staff as well. As that has not been done, staff morale in hospitals has been undermined. Staff feel insecure and unhappy about their futures. There has been no central strategy about retraining or recognition of qualifications. The transfer of staff has been piecemeal and unco-ordinated in many respects. Managers are becoming reluctant to provide funds for building fabrics because they know that those buildings will not exist for long and there is also a real problem with the declining standards of care in long-term hospitals.
The Government have made no provision for those problems. They have done even worse: underpinning the whole community care policy is a social security system that is cruelly cutting people's income. Under that policy, the Government are automatically transferring people from hospitals to live in poverty on social security benefits without the support they need.
I conclude by quoting from "A better Life—A Charter for You to Sign and Support", produced by MIND. It sums up the state of the current community care policy admirably:
Mental health services in Britain are underfunded, inadequately staffed, dominated by huge, crumbling institutions, hamstrung by outmoded ideas with no consensus for the future. The state of decline which brings crisis to mental health care brings personal tragedy to many thousands of people with mental illness. Trapped in Victorian institutions, 40 to a ward, with no privacy, no choice, no power, and no way out. Or"—
the alternative as it exists now—
living on the breadline in a dingy bedsit with no friends, no support, no job, and no home. The choice is stark.
That is not choice. We need to know when the Government will bring forward proposals for enhancing and supporting the community care policy. The tragedy is finding itself in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people all over the country. It is appalling that, while the Government claim to be targeting those in greatest need, they make no progress in community care.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The House owes a considerable debt to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for raising this centrally important issue. I found myself sympathising with a number of her points, but she was less than charitable to a Government who have, among other things, overseen the largest single attempt to alleviate the extraordinary conditions suffered by the large number of people who have been institutionalized unnecessarily—and, by modern standards, often wholly improperly—in hospitals for the mentally ill throughout the country.
It is often said in my constituency that the Government's programme of what is inelegantly called decanting the mentally handicapped from institutions into the community has been little thought through and leaves many of them uncared for. That may be the case in some authorities, but it is not in mine.
After one of the hospitals for the mentally handicapped in my constituency was half-emptied, it was thought that it would be nice if a number of its former patients, having lived in the community for some time, could return to visit friends remaining in the hospital. Thus, the former patients were gathered up from their foster homes, and so on, in the community and taken to their old hospital. When they arrived, only one of their number was prepared to leave the bus, because the others were terrified of being returned to what had in fact been an extremely well run, cheerful and hospitable institution. Nevertheless, so much did the former patients prefer being members of the community that they did not want to leave the bus.
Their attitude is something for which the Government can and should rightly take credit. However, I share the hon. Lady's anxiety that sometimes those who come with a dowry, as it were, from the National Health Service receive preferential treatment over the large number of others looked after at home by courageous people who are close to, or even beyond, breaking point, struggling with difficulties over which they have no control.
It is a complex issue, and I sympathise with the Government in not having yet made their proposals. However, I have less sympathy with them for having refused a formal debate on the Griffiths report before publication of the White Paper. I pressed for one but was rebuffed again and again. To me it is a sensible way of letting the House express its views before the White Paper is published. Nevertheless it is a complex issue, and I should like briefly to refer to one or two key issues within it.
The first is the question of choice. It is probable that scarcely a family in the country will, in the foreseeable future, have direct contact with at least one of its members who requires community care in one form or another. In that respect community care is unlike many other issues that we debate. Among that vast number is an increasing proportion who are accustomed to making choices because they have had the opportunity to do so all their lives.
I remember addressing a meeting of the British Association of Social Workers two years ago. The room divided neatly into two halves: one half vilified me for suggesting that people should be entitled to choose to go into private care if they wished, while the other half felt that it was a perfectly natural expression of the lifestyle that such people had enjoyed throughout their lives. I

expect that if I addressed the same audience now the proportions would have changed dramatically, and that most social workers now accept that it is perfectly reasonable for someone who can afford it to choose private care.
The fact remains, however, that either at the time of making their choice or soon afterwards, such people are extremely vulnerable. It is crucial that, whether they are in private or public care, they should be able to rely on standards being guaranteed. That means a common system of inspection of all kinds of residential and community provision, and I hope that the Government will bring forward clear proposals for a standardised system of inspection of community care, foster and residential homes.
I do not agree with the implication of the hon. Member for Bristol, South that private care is more haphazard, by its very nature, than public care. There are as many horror stories of haphazard and poor-quality care in the public as in the private sector.
I strongly believe that part of the definition of choice is that it be informed choice. It is important for those in need of community care to have someone to speak for them if they feel uncertain or indeed incapable of speaking for themselves. I was proud to be one of the sponsors of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, whose principal architect, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench tonight. I believe that the part of the Act that deals with advocacy is very important. I am not suggesting an army of people to second-guess the professionals. I am suggesting that those who are not able to speak for themselves are entitled to expect someone to speak for them who can be trusted to do it properly.
Then there is the question of prevention. One of the bizarre features—to use the words of the Audit Commission report, the "perverse incentives" which operate in the sphere of dependency—is the fact that for the lack of a couple of hours' respite care during a week people may be precipitated into enormously expensive and inappropriate care far earlier than they need be. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the large number of households in which carers are themselves in danger of breaking down completely. If they are allowed to break down through lack of respite, two people will be thrown into total dependency at colossal expense when a relatively small expenditure could have avoided it.
To return to a matter that I have raised here before and about which I feel passionately, may we please persuade those who design and build our houses to build in from the beginning a substantial proportion of those features that make it possible for people to remain independent for far longer than is possible today? It is absurd for builders to suggest that first-time buyers would be put off buying a house because the lintel on every door was 1½ in wider than the lintel on standard doors or because there was a ramp instead of steps. A ramp is every bit as beneficial to the mother who has to cope with a push chair or the middle-aged woman who has to cope with a heavy shopping basket on wheels as it is to somebody in a wheelchair.
I understand that such items cost about £1,000 to install when a house is built but that they cost up to £20,000 if they have to be installed as adaptations. Consequently, those who need specially adapted homes are inevitably placed in a ghetto. No matter how humane the local


authority or housing association may be, they become "ghettoised" and put together because that is the only way in which their needs can be met. That is an absurdity to which all of us ought to turn our attention.
The key question, which was raised by the Griffiths report and the hon. Member for Bristol, South, is, who is responsible for the community care service as a whole? I believe that considerable advances have been made in many local authority social services departments, including the Kent social services department. Aided by some good district health authorities that have made it perfectly clear that they are not prepared to release patients until the social services department is willing to receive them, we are working out a partnership of which we can be proud. It seems to me perfectly sound to suggest that good local authority social services departments have been rightly nominated by Griffiths as those who should be responsible for community care.
If the Government believe that another body ought to be responsible for community care, it would be perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to debate that question, but I utter a word of warning. To a civil servant—I used to be one—sitting at a desk working out theoretical patterns of responsible administration, the idea of involving the family practitioner committee, because general practitioners have such an enormous part to play in the day-to-day care of many vulnerable people, seems to be enormously attractive, but I suggest that it may prove to be the ingredient that makes the responsibility for community care fall to pieces. Many general practitioners do not want to be directly responsible for the total care in the community of many vulnerable people. They do not believe that they have been trained for it and they do not necessarily feel that they are equipped to provide such care. The way in which they are remunerated means that, on the whole, there will always be an incentive to offload the most difficult and the most severely burdensome of their patients, for reasons that I fully understand and that are in no way deplorable.
There is a marked difference between the way in which medically trained personnel think about people's problems and the way in which people who have been trained as social workers think about people's problems.
Although I know that many general practitioners and hospital consultants will bite my head off for saying it, on the whole, medical care is more authoritative, and in many cases reinforces the sense that the patient is dependent upon the advice and authority of the doctor. Good social work makes a real attempt to preserve for as long as possible the equality of authority between the client and the social worker. That is a crude way of putting it, and I realise that it will read badly tomorrow, but we should be very wary of turning community care into too much of a medical model.
It is perfectly clear that, with their long history, their long training and their long habit of controlling the institutions and organisations in which they work, if members of the medical profession are given part of the responsibility it will not be long before they hold all the responsibility. I believe that they would be less willing to use social work techniques and rather too anxious to use nursing techniques, and that would not be to the long-term benefit of people needing community care.
The issues are extremely difficult. They are issues of which I know my hon. and learned Friend the Minister is fully seized. There has seldom been a managerial report on such a sensitive subject that has been welcomed by such an enormous variety of professional organisations. In that welcome there is a clear message to the Government—"For goodness' sake, let us make up our minds as soon as we can about how best to look after the most vulnerable people in the community." I believe that the programme which the Government have put into such courageous effect in so many parts of the country of unloading people from institutions into the community has called into being a wide variety of responses, many of which are of high quality and are functioning extremely well. More than anything else, the best examples which operate in Britain should be generalised as quickly as possible for the benefit of those vulnerable people.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Audit Commission's report in 1986 said that
community care policy is in some disarray".
At that time that was an understatement, and the position has certainly worsened since 1986. The present shambles has been deliberately planned and constructed as part of the process of pushing Britain towards a private welfare system.
The crux of the matter is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) pointed out, while local authority domiciliary care has been hammered by Government cuts, private residential care has been given open-ended public subsidy to the tune of £1 billion in the current year in income support to people in private care. That is the Association of Directors of Social Services figure, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar.
I wish to refer specifically to the care of the elderly about whom I am deeply concerned. Having worked in social work for more than 20 years, my general feeling as a social worker and as a politician on the local council was that institutional care for elderly people was the last resort, the final refuge or the final means of caring for an individual. Under the system introduced by the present Government, it is frequently the first port of call. The encouraging trend away from institutional care that has developed over many years has been completely reversed and the institution has been re-invented by the Government. The institutional care model offers the Government the easiest route towards the establishment of a free-market welfare system. So far, free marketeers have not really found a way of making domiciliary care pay. Care vouchers may enable that to come about. At present, the money is made in the residential sector.
The present system is geared towards pushing elderly people into residential care, whether they need it or not. A 60-year-old woman or 65-year-old man may retire and qualify for a pension but they may be as fit or fitter than many hon. Members in the Chamber. However, they could go to the Department of Social Security, having obtained admission to a private home, and ask for income support to cover the fees. I challenge the Minister to deny that the DSS may pay that money. It is in the interests of the institution's proprietors to have a fit person of 60 or 65 in their care because they can make more money by having independent people in their home.
I am concerned that that system exists. I can give as an example a neighbour of mine. A lady in her early 80s lived


with her sister until her sister died. The family wanted to ensure that the house in which they were living was sold. The old lady, who could have coped on her own, was shunted off into private care 15 or 20 miles from where she had lived all her life. That is wrong. There was an incentive to put her into institutional care. She could have remained independent in the community. The system did not pay for the care she could have had in the home environment but paid to put her into an institution.
I know of a recent case involving—I am sure that the woman will not mind me mentioning her name—a Mrs. Palmer. I served on the local council with her husband many moons ago. In her old age she became dependent on her family. Unfortunately, her only daughter lived in the midlands. She had to travel to Yorkshire virtually every weekend to care for her mother. They could not obtain any support from the system for the work involved in caring for her in the community. When she went into hospital she was told that she required permanent institutional care. The lady's daughter came to see me. She had struggled without the benefits that she should have had when she was helping her mother to be independent, but she found that once institutional care was mentioned the benefits flowed. Therefore, that woman can go into institutional care without any problem.
The system works the wrong way round. There are huge inbuilt incentives to persuade individuals to give up their independence and move into institutions. The Government have attacked local authorities' ability to offer services geared to keeping elderly people in their own homes.
The Audit Commission said that the current system of redistribution of rate support grant acts as a deterrent to the expansion of community-based services. The current funding policies clearly discriminate in favour of private residential care at the expense of crucial areas of public domiciliary services.
The present system constitutes an irresponsible misuse of public resources. In the Wakefield district council area the number of people over 85 years of age will increase by 41 per cent. between 1981 and 1991. However, there will be no commensurate increase in the funding of the National Health Service or the social services to cover that huge change of demand on the local services. David Lane, the director of Wakefield social services, told me today that if Wakefield received its share of the £1 billion worth of subsidies being pumped into the private sector this year, it would have, by a simple division of population, an additional £6·6 million to keep people in the community and not shunt them into institutional care, frequently against their wishes.
The system results in an uneven and unfair distribution of public funds. About £20 million or £30 million is given to the east Sussex area to subsidise private residential care. It must be borne in mind that subsidies ease the housing and social services burdens of local authorities and reduce their expenditure. That £20 million or £30 million should be compared with the £2 million that Wakefield gains under this exercise. There is clearly a discrepancy in the way in which various amounts are pumped into local economies. There are also differences in the numbers of people in private care. Over a year ago, New Society stated that as many as seven times as many private nursing beds existed in the south-west as in the northern region.
The most worrying aspect is what is happening to elderly people. Domiciliary care is not only a cheaper

option but in most cases infinitely better for the individual. I know from my experience as a social worker that elderly people live longer when they are supported in their communities by friends and neighbours rather than being moved 20, 30 or 40 miles into a private institution.
The system rewards those in the private sector who pursue the worst policies, have the largest institutions and use economies of scale by packing in more and more residents. I visited a home, which fortunately was threatened with closure, where there were seven people in one room, including somebody sleeping under the fireplace. The system rewards those who skimp on staffing and pay the lowest wages. In that regard, the private sector should be considered in detail. I know of a 17-year-old girl who is receiving —1 an hour but is left in complete charge of a private home, which is irresponsible. We must consider these facts when corn paring the two sectors.
I am not so ideologically blind as to say that there is no such thing as a good private residential home, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South that profit should not be made out of care. Small private homes offer good homely care, but are penalised by the funding system. As a matter of urgency, the Government must consider that problem.
Just as private health care ignores the chronically sick, the private care sector does not want to know those who are incontinent, confused or multiply handicapped. If those people get into a private home, they will rapidly find themselves being moved into local authority part III accommodation. I am aware of this only too well because over a year ago my mother ended up in local authority part III accommodation. I felt sorry for her and the staff because of the day-to-day problems that they faced. As a consequence of the development of private care, local authority part III accommodation is being used as a dumping ground for those who the private sector does not want to know.
The Government want to break the dominant position of local authorities on community care, which has been clear since they took office. In their first Budget they slashed 9 per cent. from personal social services at the same time as they started shunting money into private residential care. When they wanted to break the dominant position of local authorities, the Griffiths report came along and presented them with some difficulties. That is why the Government have difficulty in responding to what Griffiths said. That gentleman, who is a great friend of the Prime Minister and has done everything so well in the National Health Service and caused all the problems that many of us have to face at local level, has come up with a solution that simply is not acceptable to the Government. It means that local authorities have a fundamental role to play in the future monitoring and provision of care.
Local authorities now face many problems. They find it impossible to develop long-term plans when they are faced with the completely uncontrolled expansion of the private sector. They cannot plan for future services when they do not know how many private homes will be in the independent sector. The Government want the complete privatisation of social care. They want to see an end to the collective, public sector provision of social care.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that a clique of Right-wing extremists are in control in Bradford? Bradford is being used as a test bed by the Tory central office. The Tory party—the law and


order party—is in the process of selling 15 old people's homes. Although the decision is subject to judicial review and Mr. Speaker has said that we should approach a debate on the matter with caution, the Bradford Tories have shown no such respect for the law courts and have gone ahead and discussed the matter in detail in committees. That bears out my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. Of all the things that have happened in Bradford, the most unacceptable, lowest point that has been reached by the new group in control is in respect of its proposals relating to the elderly. The Bradford Tories are not the first to make that proposal. Other Tory authorities have done so, but they have not gone as far as the Bradford Tories appear to be going.
The Government are actively encouraging an increasing number of large business concerns to move into the private sector. I hope that the Minister is listening, because I shall refer to an official of whom he is probably aware. An organisation called Premier Care was launched a couple of weeks ago. It is funded by—this is an example of the extent to which businesses get involved in private sector caring—Fulton Prebon Sterling Ltd., reputed to be the third largest money broking firm in the world. It is interesting that one of the directors is a Mr. Maurice Phillips, who, until earlier this year, was the deputy chief inspector of the DHSS's social services inspectorate.
The purpose of Premier Care is to set up a privatised system of registration and inspection. I cannot envisage someone who has been at such a senior level within the DHSS putting his money into a company such as that without knowing that the Government are thinking of having a privatised system not just of care but of registering, monitoring and inspecting. I should like to hear the Minister's response to that point. I can see him shuffling in his seat. I have probably spoken for too long, so I shall finish with one or two points.
I remind the Minister, who is new to his job, that about 20 years ago—around the time when I started in welfare work—the Seebohm report addressed the problem of divided responsibility for policy, resources and coordination in social services, and came up with the existing provision of local authority service, the generic departments that we have grown to know and, some of us, to love. The Seebohm report said:
The more fragmented the responsibility for the provision of personal social services, the more pronounced these problems become.
The Government have deliberately fragmented the provision of services for the elderly to pave the way for private welfare; it is not accidental. In consequence, they are presiding over a scandalous misuse of huge amounts of public resources which could be directed to people who need to be supported in the community, rather than being used to support those who do not need to be in residential care.
It all comes down to the fact that the Government are sacrificing the interests of elderly people on the altar of their free market ideology. It is a disgrace that there was nothing in the Queen's Speech on Griffiths or community care, and it is appalling that it has taken so long to produce any response. I want to hear some answers tonight.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on her position in the ballot; I have tried to achieve a position as high as she has in the ballot on a number of occasions. I have only managed 13th today and I doubt whether we shall get that far, so I am glad to have the opportunity to join in this interesting debate. I look forward to the reply that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will make. In doing so, I pay tribute to the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who helped me several times with matters related to care in the community. I look forward to receiving continuing help from my colleagues in the Department.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South referred to respite care, and highlighted the central question of who has responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) discussed exactly how well care is provided in the public sector and again asked how responsibility should be determined.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) started well by pointing out the anomalies in care for the elderly, and the fact that the Audit Commission has highlighted some of the perverse incentives. He obviously has experience of work in these matters. However, I was sorry to hear the way in which he developed his argument. He is basically a monopolist. He believes that there should be a monopoly of care and that, as long as the monopolist is provided with a super-abundance of resources, everything will be all right, but my constituents, and members of the recently formed Bolton handicap action group, which I helped to set up, are very dissatisfied at having to depend on a monopoly for their services.
The difficulty with the Griffiths report is that Mr. Griffiths obviously spent too much time talking to the providers, and too little time to the consumers of the services. We need a structure that pays more attention to the needs of those who use the services. The hon. Member for Bristol, South highlighted those points very clearly. Griffiths simply does not pay enough attention to the contribution that the voluntary sector can make. We know from the Audit Commission report that the value placed on care provided by the informal section is about £6,000 million. We need a structure that will harness that enormous contribution, help it to grow and make it fit with the system as a whole.
Unfortunately, there is not time tonight to cover all the work done by the voluntary groups. I shall merely mention some of the points put to me by some of the leading voluntary groups such as MENCAP, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, the Spastics Society, RADAR—the Royal Society for Disability and Rehabilitation—and MIND, as well as the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. I shall mention too some of the outstanding contributions made by some of my constituents. One of the people who I would like my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to meet if he has an opportunity to come to my constituency is Mrs. Gibson of Legendre street. Although a single parent—a widow—Mrs. Gibson has adopted one of the most severely handicapped children from the Elizabeth Ashmore home in Bolton. The child is almost wholly paralysed, yet she has been able to take the child into her home and care for the


child in an extraordinary and welcome way. She is a widow, as her husband, who was a haemophiliac, died of AIDS, so she has already had a tragedy in her life.
I should like my hon. and learned Friend to meet Mrs. Cummings of Hough Fold way who has a 20-year-old son, David, who is profoundly handicapped. She faces all the difficulties, which have been mentioned already, of what happens when a child reaches the age of 19 and all the provision of care and education suddenly stops. An ordinary child may well be able to care for himself, but a profoundly handicapped child cannot. Parents may well be growing older and, as the physical size of the child and his demands become greater, the burden of caring becomes greater.
In reflecting on how Griffiths might have considered the problems differently and reached different conclusions, I think that he underestimated the voluntary sector. On page 26 he states:
this should allow the social services authority to hold the not-for-profit body to account for the proper use of public funds.
Why should the not-for-profit voluntary bodies not hold the social services authority to account for the proper use of public funds? That way it might be interesting to see exactly how much money is available and exactly how well it is being used to provide care. As Mrs. Cummings said to me when I saw her last only last week:
Only when local health and social services can be directed by a body with legally binding powers to provide services will proper care of the handicapped become a reality.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for introducing his Bill which is now the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. It is directed at putting a statutory duty on whichever body is to have responsibility to provide these services, not on the basis of discretion, but generally. That is what carers seek.
How should that be done? That is the question that the Government must address. There is no question but that it must be done. Only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
Everyone agrees that there is a serious problem",
and:
few people think that the status quo is highly satisfactory."—[Official Report, 13 December 1988; Vol. 143 c. 771.]
There are calls for the 1986 Act to be implemented, calls for the Griffiths report to be implemented and calls for more funds. But I suggest that we could pay some regard to the suggestions of the Department of Employment. I refer the House to the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" and what it says about training and enterprise councils.
Enterprise councils are to be formed locally and two thirds of their composition should come from the private sector. They will help to direct a budget of £3,000 million. Each council will have a budget of about £25 million. Therefore, if a local care in the community council were formed in each area, was responsible for administering a budget and consisted predominantly of people from the voluntary sector, they would decide how the money was to be spent. They would hold to account the social services department and the health authority on exactly how they provide care. They would be responsible for harnessing the enormous resources of the voluntary sector to provide care in the form in which it is wanted.
I recommend that the Government should seriously consider setting up local care for the community councils,

two thirds of whose members should be representatives from voluntary groups and one third officials from local and health authorities, family practitioner committees, the Departments of Health Social Security and any other relevant official bodies. The chairman of such a council should be an independent person. That council should then bid for the power to direct spending. It should have a life of, say, three years, after which it would have to bid again to have the power to continue. If it could not administer its functions properly, another body could be formed which could bid to do the job. Such a council could take over the powers currently exercised by the joint planning committees, which are made up of local and health authorities.
I do not suppose that such a proposal would be welcomed by official bodies, whose powers would be weakened, but I believe that it would much better serve the interests of the disabled and their hard-pressed carers than the monopoly institutions which presently have that job, and which the Griffiths report calls on to provide the care in a future structure. The Government have been right to hesitate before leaping to take on the Griffiths proposals. That doubt is shared by individual carers, who do not want to be in the hands of any such monopoly. They would rather have the services directed by people with experience of using the voluntary sector rather than just bureaucrats.
The subject of community care has been on everyone's lips for some time—in fact, it goes back 30 years—but to many people its implications are largely unknown. Most people have just a vague idea of the large mental hospitals closing down. For years, community care has been little more than political rhetoric and idealistic policies and has had nothing to do with the realities of ignorance and the neglect of the handicapped and their carers in our society.
The majority of mentally handicapped children and adults have always lived in our society until their parents could no longer cope. Some 70 per cent. of mentally handicapped adults live with their families. That voluntary care, which has been valued at —6,000 million by the Audit Commission, must be increasing year by year. It is clear that the parents are the backbone and the basis of community care. Support for them must be the main task of community care. That support should consist of the provision of respite and day care centres which can properly cater for their requirements.
Community care should mean an end of the need to choose between care by the family and care by the state. Et is scandalous that the only way in which a profoundly handicapped person can receive a dowry is by going into an institution for at least six months. That should not be the only way in which a person can gain entry into a neighbourhood network scheme.
When compared with mentally handicapped adults, mentally handicapped children are relatively well catered for, which is simply because all children must receive full-time education. However, when they reach the age of 19, they are suddenly forgotten. It is as though, like normal children, they are considered sufficiently prepared for the outside world and have no need for further care.
I would like to raise the points made to me by the voluntary groups when we have a full debate on community care. I am sure that all the hon. Members who have spoken would like the opportunity of a full debate on


this subject. I hope that I can put some of those points in letters to the Minister, if I have not sufficient time to raise them now.
One of the things that worries parents greatly is how to make provision for their children which is not a substitute for state benefits. If someone wins the pools, he does not lose his pension, but if a disabled person receives an inheritance he immediately loses his entitlement to some of his benefits. That is unfair and I hope that that is also addressed by the Government.
Mary Holland of MENCAP has said:
how we respond to the needs of people who for too long have been denied their rightful place in the community—who for too long have been 'out of sight and out of mind'—will show our true worth as a 'civilised society' approaching the 21st Century.
Our challenge is to find the right structure in which we can harness both the resources of the public sector—at central and local government level—and the enormous resources that can be made available on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) not only on her success in the ballot for the debate, but on introducing the debate with an outstanding speech that was comprehensive and sincere. It helped the House to identify the many problems associated with community care.
Had my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) been successful in participating in the debate, she would have said a great deal about social security, lodging allowances and so on. That underlines how crucial it is to have a full-scale debate on community care, preferably in Government time. It is a great pity that tonight's debate has underlined the fact that no such full-scale debate has taken place.
I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) who spoke with considerable authority, as one might expect, given his experience in social services. I know that the House listened carefully to many of the points that he made. The hon. Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) gave outstanding support to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. I am particularly grateful that they mentioned that Act in their speeches tonight.
As my hon. Friends have said, we are not without information, research, advice and opinion on this matter. Hon. Members have mentioned the Griffiths report. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be more forthcoming about that report. Time after time, we have asked his right hon. Friends, including the Prime Minister, to tell us what they think of that report. It was published in March and it is extremely thoughtful.
Months before, when we asked questions about personal social services and community care, we were told that we should wait for the Griffiths report. We did so patiently, but now we are asked to be even more patient in awaiting the Government's response to it. I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity tonight to tell us precisely what the Government will do about Sir Roy Griffiths' views. Virtually everyone who has spoken tonight has asked for such a response.
We have also heard mention of the 1985 report of the Social Services Select Committee, which contained 101 recommendations, and of the Audit Commission report. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield rightly reminded us that that report talked of community care being in disarray. All of our concerns about community care find some refuge in almost every section of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act and I am grateful for the references made to it tonight.
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent spoke about advocacy. As he knows, that is in the Act. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East spoke about consumers. If ever an Act attempted to reflect the views of consumers and to give them a say in service provision, this was it: its very title uses the word "consultation". Two and a half years on, it is extremely distressing to find that only a modest attempt has been made to implement that Act. Sections 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11—some would say these constitute the meat of the provisions for community care—have still not been implemented by the Government. We are entitled to ask, why not? At the time of the Act's passage, there was a great deal of support for it in both Houses. There still is, but millions of people with disabilities and their carers still wait for its full implementation.
As Christmas approaches, we should think about the problems of community care, if only because 90 per cent. of these people—the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill—live in the community. Government funding does not reflect that proportion: quite the reverse. It concentrates on residential care or on the NHS. We certainly want proper funding for the NHS, but on the basis of a clearly identified strategy for community care, which recognises that people are entitled to enjoy independence in the community, properly supported by occupational therapy, the home help service and so on. People should not be driven as a matter of necessity, rather than of choice, into residential care, which may not be in their interests.
How can we ignore, particularly at this time of year, the housing crisis in this country? Housing investment has been cut in real terms by 60 per cent. under this Government. Council house starts are at an all-time low. Housing subsidies have been eroded. The consequences of this have been brought to our attention repeatedly, not least in Scotland by Mr. Laurie Naumann, the director of the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless. His document, called "The First Four Weeks", deals with unemployed homeless young people who know all about lost income support and YTS jobs that do not exist.
We condemn the Government's approach because it offers no clear strategy for community care or for evolving a relationship between the providers and consumers of care.
The Government talk of cost-effectiveness. There is not much evidence even of that, as was clear from the Griffiths and Audit Commission reports. The revolving door syndrome can be seen especially in the discharging of patients from long-stay psychiatric hospitals. There is nothing efficient about that. Section 7 of the 1986 Act makes it possible at least to deal with people who have been in psychiatric hospitals for six months or more. Many of them are sent out into community care that does not exist. Many find themselves in prison, or in places entirely unsuited to their needs.


The Government's policy of running down hospital provision and closing wards and of not providing sufficient bridging funding is not a substitute for proper community care. In many ways, it weakens the concept of community care, as the Opposition understand it. The tragedy is that the Government are not even attempting to identify the problems nationally. Several times I have tabled questions to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), and in reply after reply it appears that central information does not exist. There is no incentive for people to provide local plans.
I realise that time is running short and I am anxious to accommodate the Minister, so I end on this note. The Opposition's attitude to proper provision of community care represents a challenge to poverty, homelessness and neglect. For that reason, we cannot place all our faith in the free market. How can we, when in New York it has produced 30,000 former psychiatric patients on the streets? How can we do that, when we know of the problems that exist in London and in many other parts of Britain? We believe in a policy of mutuality of concern for service provision; in insisting on the rights of the consumer; and in a community care priority that is crying out to be met.

The Minister for Health (Mr. David Mellor: I am glad to follow the courteous speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). I too would have liked the House to have had the opportunity of having a longer debate on community care. It is an important issue to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have something to contribute. Although I do not determine the business of the House, I dare say that if the will is there on both Front Benches, it should be possible to have a longer time in which to discuss the matter.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I am genuinely sorry that time was not available for every hon. Member who wished to speak. I could not reasonably have been expected to take any less time than the nine minutes with which I have been left. One or two others might, with advantage, have compressed their remarks a little. If the hon. Lady has a point to make, I shall be happy to accept an intervention in my speech.

Mr. John Battle: rose—

Mr. Mellor: The same goes for the hon. Gentleman. If they would allow me to get into my stride for a minute or two, I should be happy to give way to them. People who stay up until 1 am are entitled to have their say.
I have noted the points made in the debate. Some common threads ran through the speeches with which I had no difficulty agreeing, but honesty compels me to say that I cannot fully endorse some comments by Opposition Members. As I shall show, there has been a formidable underestimate of the additional resources that have flowed into community care during the past decade.
As one of those who find a good deal of the argument in Sir Roy Griffiths' report most compelling, it saddens me that those who are troubled about the emphasis that he places on local authority provision base their objections on the fact that some local authorities cannot recognise that the proper provision of community care must be a fair balance between the individual carers—about whom the

hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) had some important words to say—and local authority provision. In my constituency, I have always worked closely with my local social services department, and I know the good work that is done in the country. But we should not forget the voluntary and private sectors.
The attacks on the private sector by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) were unconvincing and redolent of another age, but they provide good ammunition for those who say that the voluntary and private sectors would not get a fair judgment if Sir Roy Griffiths' analysis were followed. I am reluctant to arrive at that conclusion, but it behoves all of us to take off our ideological blinkers, look at the situation in the round and recognise that good community care will be a balanced contribution from a range of sources.

Mrs. Mahon: My point concerns hostel charges and the change from board and lodging to housing benefit which could mean a 30 per cent. cut in provision. Will the Minister give us a sign of future funding arrangements and a guarantee that we shall not see a cut in funding to the valuable hostel services, particularly women's refuges?

Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Lady has registered that point, which largely concerns the Department of Social Security. I shall ensure that she receives a full answer either from me or from my colleague at the Department of Social Security.
It is clear that there has been a dramatic increase in community care resources. For instance, when the National Audit Office considered the period 1976–77 to 1984–85, it indicated that there had been an 18 per cent. real terms increase in expenditure on services for the elderly, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the physically disabled. The personal social services provision or 1989–90, which has just been established, has been set at £3·3 billion. That is over 10 per cent. more than was provided in the 1988–89 settlement and so allows for considerable growth, even discounting inflation. Between 1983–84 and 1987–88, local authorities, which have always had a crucial role to play, increased their expenditure by more than 20 per cent. in real terms.
We must be careful not to underestimate the extent of the additional provision that we have seen in practical terms. Many of us are concerned about mental handicap because few of us do not feel touched by those problems. The hospital population fell by about 15,000 between 1976 and 1986, but the number of day care and residential places in the community rose by over 50 per cent. more than that. There were over 26,000 additional places, which is a sign of the growth in provision that we all want to see.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South rightly attacked Victorian institutions with large wards. Obviously there will continue to be a need for various kinds of institutions, but community care—

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady took over 20 minutes, although I do not blame her for doing so. She is entitled to have her say, but I should like to say a few things myself.
Similarly, when one considers mental illness, between 1976 and 1986, the number of residential care places almost doubled and places in day centres increased by almost two thirds.


It has been pointed out that the number of people over the age of 85 will grow. Our figures suggest that the number will more than double by the year 2011. Obviously there is a formidable task ahead of us and we will be better equipped to meet it if there is genuine partnership between national and local government. Local government is full of people who recognise the need for good voluntary activity and that the private sector can play its part. If one cuts away some of the ideological overlay in the speech of the hon. Member for Wakefield. one sees that there was at the heart of it a point that few of us can deny—that there is a perverse incentive that makes it easier for people to go into residential care than to stay in the community. I regret that. It is not helpful and I note that almost everyone who has looked at community care has denounced it and has asked for a proper gatekeeper.
I am sure that there are certain truths that all of us who work in the community in a practical way—as Members of Parliament do—cannot deny. One of them is that people do not want to go into institutions. They go into them as a last resort. Central to any reshaping of community care, which cannot be delayed for long, is a recognition that domiciliary services will have to expand and we will have to look far more carefully at the basis on which people enter long-term care which most people would not enter it there were the opportunity to stay in the community. It is not simply a matter of keeping people in the community. We must also consider retraining people to return to the community. There is a good record of that around the country and we must build on it.
I accept that in closing the large institutions we must not consign patients to the wind or breeze of fortune. There must be adequate provision for them in the community. That provision is being built up. I have had the privilege to visit many marvellous projects established to satisfy that provision. We want more of them, and I believe that between us we should be able to find the resources to make that possible.

Orders of the Day — Energy Efficiency and Conservation

1 am

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I hope that the House agrees that it is important to raise the question of energy efficiency and conservation now. It may not be an appropriate time of day to raise the matter, but it is an appropriate time in the political debate to raise it.
I hope that this debate will be spared deep ideological divisions, although there are of course important questions and legitimate differences about public expenditure and what resources should be devoted to such matters. But the timing of this short debate is important. There is widespread public concern about the global environment—issues such as the greenhouse effect and the general increase in pollution levels. People are also worried about adverse climatic effects, the potential increase in sea levels, deforestation and desertification of various parts of the globe. Increased energy efficiency and conservation have an important part to play in those debates.
The Prime Minister, if not the Secretary of State for the Environment, has said she has an interest in the subject. That is right and proper. However, the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society raised the suspicion among the cynics that she is more interested in arguing a positive case for nuclear power than in protecting the environment. She is more interested in promoting the interests of the nuclear industry and in trying to stymie future developments in coal-fired stations.
I am not a cynic and I take all the statements of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment at face value. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have at least increased public interest and concern about conservation and the environment.
It is also important that we should consider energy efficiency and conservation now—and this will not be lost on the Minister—because there is the small matter of the Electricity Bill before the House. Hon. Members will be able to voice their concerns in the debates on that Bill. The Bill provides an opportunity for people to argue an alternative to the nuclear route. Clearly we will have the opportunity in the debates on the Electricity Bill to consider an alternative that will provide greater value for money for the industry, the public sector and for private domestic users. That alternative can be achieved if we increase the amount of resources that we devote to energy conservation and efficiency.
It is common knowledge that many academic and professional bodies are now interested in conservation and the environment and have published reports and general information about it. The Rocky Mountain Institute, whose expertise is well known, took the view in a recently published report that
The key to ameliorating future climatic warming caused by the combustion of fossil fuels is to improve the efficiency of energy usage.
That sums up the view of many academics, who have concluded that investment in energy efficiency is, pound for pound, seven times more effective in abating global warming than is nuclear power. There is nothing new about that—many academic, professional and pressure groups take the same view.


Although the Select Committee on the Environment's recent report is essentially concerned with air pollution, it nevertheless reaches an interesting conclusion in respect of energy conservation:
However, if the world wants light, heat and energy in constant and increasing supply, the choice might resolve itself between a source which is deliberately and constantly poisoning the atmosphere and one whose misadventure would have catastrophic global results … but an alternative would be energy conservation and reduction in demand.
That is an important and significant finding.
What will reduced demand mean? The House will know that the European Community has recently produced its own estimates. It came to the conclusion that if a saving of 1 per cent. per annum in energy usage can be achieved, it will reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by the staggering figure of 125,000 tonnes annually, and those of nitric oxide by 200,000 tonnes, in addition to achieving significant reductions in carbon dioxide levels.
The Minister will know that the European Community has set a target reduction of 20 per cent. over the period 1983–95. That is a minimum, but it is clearly also achievable, and it provides the context for our debate and sets down what is achievable by all member states over that period.
There are worries in the minds of many people about recent trends in Government policy on efficiency and conservation. As evidence of the Government's awareness of the situation, I quote the former Secretary of State for Energy:
When I came into office in 1983, I judged that Britain was down at the bottom of the international energy efficiency league. By the end of the decade I want the world to judge that we are at the top.
Some of the actions following upon that statement served to confirm that the Government were taking the matter fairly seriously. In 1983, the then Secretary of State began with an inherited budget of about £11·8 million. By 1986–87, the budget had increased to £25 million. There was also the monergy scheme, and at one stage about 2,000 events were sponsored by the Energy Efficiency Office. There were even, at the last count, 43 breakfasts! In all seriousness, they made the point to business men; those to whom I spoke felt that they had provided a useful exchange of information and had a real purpose. So a certain amount of energy was expended by the former Secretary of State himself.
The budget for the Energy Efficiency Office has now been cut to £15 million, and it has been suggested that it will be cut further. The number of staff has also been cut since the heyday of nearly 100 people, and the Civil Service grades of those involved seem to be getting lower. There used to be at least five grade IV civil servants.
Home insulation grants are arguably the most practical way in which people can contribute to energy efficiency. Increased insulation schemes lead not only to financial savings but to warmer homes, which is particularly important for elderly people at this time of year. The home improvement grant scheme was introduced in 1978 and expanded in 1984: the budget was increased to £35 million and there was a 90 per cent. allowance for supplementary benefit claimants. By 1987 all but the supplementary benefit scheme had been abolished. I know that most homes now have some insulation, but what percentage have the Government's recommended 6 in of insulation in their lofts? What I have read suggests that the figure could be as low as 15 per cent.
The industrial energy survey schemes set in train by the Government recently had benefits transcending the protection of the environment. They increased the competitiveness of businesses that engaged in them, providing for 50-50 cost sharing for industry, commerce and public sector buildings when energy-saving schemes were being considered. Up to £10,000 of grant was also available for the more extensive schemes, and the Department of Energy claimed that when they were in full swing some £35 could be saved for every £1 invested. If that was so, why did the Department decide to abolish the scheme this year?
There are also worries about the planned cutbacks in the advertising budget. The budget for getting the energy message across was formerly £7 million; what is it to be in the years to come? Some people fear that it will be cut fairly drastically. Then there is the home energy advice scheme. A draft European Community directive entitled "Energy Information in Buildings" makes a major contribution to information about the energy costs of new homes, and tells domestic consumers how to improve their energy efficiency. Some pressure groups think that the United Kingdom blocked the scheme, or at least was not enthusiastic about it, and I would be interested to hear whether that contributed to the delaying of the directive.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a compulsory energy audit?

Mr. Kirkwood: I am talking about what I understand to be an EEC draft directive called "Energy Information in Buildings", but I understand that it is basically concerned with domestic energy audits.
There are other measures that the Government formerly promoted and in which they now seem less interested—for instance, the monitoring and targeting of specific industries, and assistance to energy managers, which seems less readily available than it was. The Department also seems to be promoting fewer building demonstration schemes. The Department of Energy is apparently becoming increasingly uninterested in this important matter.
In 1985 the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales set minimum standards. It said that one staff member should be employed for every £1 million spent on fuel and that 10 per cent. of revenue should be reinvested in capital improvements. How many councils and Government Departments have achieved that target, or are making any effort to do so? The target figure for savings was formerly £7 billion per annum. What is that target now? Does the Minister have any information about the EEC target by 1995? All these important questions need to be answered.
The Government are missing opportunities in both public and private sector housing. Building controls and standards should be tightened. The Department insists on a U-value—a measure of energy efficiency, and the lower the figure the better the value—of 0·45. I am told that many of the materials that are being used in the construction industry do not meet that standard. Do the Government believe that there is adequate policing of the regulations? There is an argument for raising the standard of the U-value to at least 0·35, a standard that has been adopted by other EEC countries whose circumstances are similar to ours. What pressure do the Government intend


to bring to bear to make sure that tougher steps are taken to ensure that tighter control and higher standards are achieved?
Much could be achieved. That has been demonstrated by the Milton Keynes energy unit. It has promoted eight schemes that have saved £125,000 a week. Other Milton Keynes projects include solar power cells, chemical systems and a 300-acre energy park. When the Minister visited Milton Keynes he referred to the need to spread to Wigan, Wick and Walthamstow the lessons that had been learnt at Milton Keynes. I agree with him, but what has he done since he made that important and useful speech to ensure that the message has been spread? The recent draft EEC directive "Energy Information in Buildings" will be useful in that connection.
The March consultative group that produced a report for the EEC said that up to 15 to 20 per cent. could be saved in the north-west by using tried and tested techniques—nothing new, or too fancy or technological—that are already available in the market. The measures that they outlined included monitoring, targeting, better housekeeping, better design and better equipment. The March consultative group came to the conclusion that an 8 per cent. reduction in energy use could be achieved by ordinary householders becoming more energy efficient by installing hot water tank insulation, loft insulation and cavity wall insulation, draft proofing, double glazing, condensing boilers and heating controls. The Government, local authorities and housing associations should be trumpeting these messages from the rooftops.
There have been recent press reports, including one in The Guardian, about the Treasury making it more difficult for the National Health Service to make full use of energy-efficient systems, thereby saving taxpayers' money. In the context of the United Kingdom as a whole, the energy bill could be reduced by £4 billion to £5 billion a year if £8 billion to £9 billion were spent on energy conservation measures. I acknowledge that that is a very large figure, and I do not expect the Minister to say that he can immediately produce such a huge sum of money, but there are positive directions in which he could move. The £3 billion provided in the Electricity Bill to featherbed the nuclear industry could be put to better use, but no doubt we shall have the opportunity to debate that in the coming weeks as the Electricity Bill completes its passage through the House.
When the Prime Minister spoke at the Milton Keynes energy week, I was disturbed that she spoke about savings and reductions of only £7 billion out of £35 billion total energy expenditure. That was the original saving hoped for in energy efficiency. That aim has been improved by the Secretary of State, who said that we can now save only £8 billion out of a total expenditure of £39 billion. That is a very complacent target. The Government are not doing enough to achieve better savings.
The Government should set rigorous targets which they should prosecute with a great deal more vigour. They have to deploy resources and produce finance to achieve them. The standards set by statute for buildings, appliances, plant and methods of transport could be improved and "least cost" planning for all Government Departments should be established. Contract energy management, which is a system of third party financing, and energy

service companies to provide financing should be encouraged. Information needs to be more widely available at domestic level about running costs through the labelling of appliances. Resources for domestic and industrial efficiency and conservation procedures should be made available throughout the United Kingdom. And, against that background, we still have to remember the importance of the global perspective.
The Secretary of State has said that energy conservation cannot be imposed on an unwilling public; but there is no evidence that the public is unwilling to have conservation and efficiency forced upon it. There may be a lack of individual and collective finance, a degree of ignorance or lack of awareness, but people are certainly not unwilling. The Government have a duty to protect the environment. If they did that by promoting energy conservation and efficiency more vigorously, that would benefit industry, consumers and the public sector and would even make room for further tax cuts if the savings proved to be as extensive as I hoped they might be.
The Electricity Bill provides an opportunity to make efficiency and conservation of energy a primary aim in industry. If the Prime Minister wants to be taken seriously as being glad to be green or being concerned about prudent housekeeping, she will need to invest to achieve better long-term results in this important sector of public expenditure.

Mr. Tony Speller: We owe the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) a debt of gratitude for raising the subject for debate. I was sad to hear his comments about the Prime Minister. I believe that when a convert is found one should be nice to them, and it does no good at all to snub them. That applies as much to a marginal voter as it does to a marginal Prime Minister. Having said that, everything else the hon. Gentleman said made sound sense.
The way to achieve energy efficiency and conservation is not to waste things. It is that simple. Many years ago during the war, there were campaigns to save one thing or another because there were no resources to spare. Now energy resources are abundant. They are even overabundant allowing for the way that we use them. Energy is over-used because it is cheap, and therefore it is wasted. If we do not waste it and we use less of it we shall benefit. Let us start at the bottom, in the home. We should insulate, double-glaze and draught-proof the home. We should lag the hot water tank and check the appliances that we buy to find out how much electricity they use. Those tremendously easy and simple methods cost very little and pay back in terms of power bills within six months to two years.
We follow the United States in many things, including fast food. It has energy audits as a matter of course. All its major utilities are required by its Energy Act to offer an audit to each house to see what can be done cheaply to make it draught-proof, warmer and, therefore, cheaper to run for the householder. It makes sense and I suspect that sooner or later we shall introduce such a system. If a utility could save the cost of a new power station, it would be worth making the saving and selling a little less energy.
One of our problems is that the newspapers are full of advertisements from the excellent salesmen of gas or electricity trying to sell more and more. That may mean


producing one more power station at a gigantic cost to supply a marginal unit of electricity. The United States has realised that resources are finite and is working on that basis. Surely we should do that and we would be none the worse for it. We have already pointed the way.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was the Secretary of State for Energy we started the monergy campaign. It was designed to save a fair proportion of the energy used. Ultimately, we did not save a great deal. In percentage terms we saved 1 per cent. That might not seem to be much but it is equivalent to the output of three Sizewells. It was achieved at a cost to the taxpayer of less than the cost of the public inquiry into the last Sizewell station. Lagging jackets on the 10 million uninsulated water tanks in Britain would save the cost of a Hinkley Point C, which is not too far from my constituency or yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If one can save the cost of a new utility, irrespective of the arguments as to whether it should be coal, nuclear or hydro, the saving must make sense. The United States Energy Act 1978 forces electricity and gas utilities to provide free energy audits to their consumers, provide loans and give advice on how to save energy. Within two years, insulation in Britain could save 5 per cent. of our energy. Although the percentage seems small, it is actually a vast figure.
Another system which is much talked of but which no one really understands—rather like proportional representation—is combined heat and power. In that system one does not waste, as we do at present, more power in cooling off the generating stations than is produced for the grid. One of the oddities of life is that we are so profligate with power that we waste more than we produce. That is illogical. I am sorry to have to quote figures but about 40 per cent. of our final energy demand is used as petrol or diesel for vehicles. Much of the pollution in our ever-more congested streets is ejected at what I call "pushchair level". It does vast damage to youngsters and brings no pleasure to the rest of us. It is time we started to give priority to other forms of transport. The most illogical thing in London is to see a queue of cars entering town between 8.30 am and 9.30 am each containing one person and taking up a vast amount of space. Probably all the drivers in a length of road could be fitted into one omnibus. That may not be convenient, but it would be a saving of a finite resource, which is what we should be looking towards.
I do not seek to detain the House at this hour. However, many of us, irrespective of our views on the type of generation, would agree that anything that saves energy saves money. If one can save some cash, one would be a welcome and popular friend, not least to one's electorate.
Windmills work and pollute nothing. They are excellent producers of clean energy in a quantity that is easy to assimilate and distribute locally. Water wheels have worked for centuries. We abandoned them because of the idleness of our civilisation but they have a sensible and logical use. Tidal power works and is clean and infinitely renewable. In my constituency, the tide rises and falls 36 ft twice a day, but we have no way of harnessing that power. When we consider harnessing it in barrages, there is a veritable barrage of protest from environmental interests, which say that terrible things will happen to wading birds. I feel sorry for wading birds, but I suspect that they will find another place to wade. Surely it is sensible to begin to

consider this clean form of energy and try to use it, not to the exclusion of other sources but as well as them. Further alternative sources are sunlight and geothermal hot water.
If we tried a little tenderness with the environment instead of using the most expensive and pollutant forms of energy and, in our own small way, tried to save a little here and there, we would save much money and much of our environment for future generations.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am not sure that I want to follow the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) down all the avenues that they travelled. It would make the debate unnecessarily wide if I spoke about the greenhouse effect and renewable sources of energy, which are worth a debate on their own.
I shall confine my remarks to a fairly narrow definition of energy efficiency and conservation and the problems, that were partly dealt with by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, concerning the Government's attitude to them. The debate has spread to topics mentioned by the Prime Minister in her Royal Society speech, which was a broad commitment to conservation and looking after the global environment. It did not necessarily imply a commitment to policies that might bring that about in the lifetime of her Government.
I have taken the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office, but I am not sure that I am working from the same figures as the hon. Gentleman. My figures come from a written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on 9 December and show a cut in the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office from £26 million in 1986–87 to £24·5 million in the year ending last April and to £20·8 million for the current financial year. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire may have been referring to a prospective cut in the next financial year, but perhaps the Minister will say a little more about that and justify a cut of almost 80 per cent. in the budget, if the figure of £15 million being projected for the 1989–90 budget is correct. My figures certainly show a major cut from £26 million to £20 million over the past two years, which is extremely serious, against which the Government's commitment to conservation and efficiency must be judged.
One of the reasons why it gives me a certain amount of pleasure, even at this late hour, to be debating this topic is that being the hon. Member for Cardiff, West it is possible for me to say that much useful work has been done by Cardiff over the three years since it became the first energy action city in the United Kingdom by a combination of local authority and Government initiative. It has been an extremely good and well-run programme, which has been reasonably well funded by a mixture of Government and local authority funding, combined with much enthusiasm. There are 110,000 dwellings in Cardiff, and almost 20,000 have been fitted with home insulation and draught-proofing under the neighbourhood energy action programme. That sounds like a lot, but much remains to be done, although Cardiff is probably in the lead of most middle-sized United Kingdom cities in breaking the back of the problem.
The hon. Member for Devon, North mentioned the vast number of domestic hot water tanks that remain to be


insulated and the many roofs that need to be brought up to modern insulation standards. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, probably three quarters of British homes now have roof insulation, but only a small number have the 6 in roof insulation that is recommended by the Government and which will become mandatory for house building from April next year. The Minister may say something about that. The hon. Gentleman's figure of 15 per cent. would coincide with my estimate of the proportion of the total United Kingdom housing stock that currently has 6 in insulation.
I should like the Minister to say when he can reasonably expect 50 per cent. of houses in the United Kingdom to be insulated to the 6 in standard. When does he expect 25 per cent. or 75 per cent. of United Kingdom houses to be insulated to the 6 in standard? Does he expect that to be achieved within 10 years, 25 years, or is that a totally unrealistic target, given his budget for energy efficiency work?
Cardiff is not the only energy action city. There are many. There are five in Wales alone. I do not know the figure for the United Kingdom. Neighbourhood insulation schemes are run by a non-profit-making company in Newcastle, Neighbourhood Energy Action, and a good outfit it is. The problem is that a major catastrophe has engulfed neighbourhood energy action programmes up and down the land. I do not think that I am exaggerating—that is as I understand it from people working in the sector.
By and large, programmes will grind to a halt. They cannot cope with the change from community programme funding to employment training funding. Apart from Hull, most cities are not able to find volunteers under the current rules for benefit payment. Obviously, the major impulse for neighbourhood energy action insulation programmes has not come just from householders wanting insulation, and wanting insulation done on the cheap. It has been a by-product of the benefit system and of high unemployment. It is certainly now running into the sand. By and large, people are not willing to operate just for benefits-plus.
The previous scheme under community programme rules, whereby people got £20 a day for three days' work was not wildly popular, but it was not too bad. Most schemes are running into heavy weather. The phrase "grinding to a halt" is not an exaggeration, although I am told that Hull is an exception. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
If the benefits-plus system is not working for the people who operate energy insulation schemes, we must think of something else, otherwise the momentum and the skills that have been built up among supervisory and estimating staff and in the production of insulation material will reach a serious crisis.
We need to consider what we must do about the elderly. The elderly are major beneficiaries of neighbourhood energy action schemes. They are the most vulnerable group. In general, they spend about twice as much of their weekly income on heating in the winter as the population in general spend. On average, pensioners spend about 15 per cent. of their weekly income on heating. The figure is much higher for those who do not have gas central heating. They would spend about 20 per cent., maybe even

more. It is not unknown for pensioners to spend 25 per cent. of their weekly income on heating. They hit a severe crisis if there is a really cold winter. In January and February, pensioners go through an extremely difficult time. The phenomenon is almost uniquely British.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned building standards, which are extremely important, and discussed what we should do with buildings erected before the first world war to completely different insulation standards and to buildings built since then but with very poor cavity wall insulation or none at all. Such buildings are frequently inhabited by pensioners, who find it extremely expensive to keep warm in them. Hypothermia among the elderly is a largely British phenomenon. It is not found in Scandinavia, where building standards are much higher and where pensions are higher in relation to the cost of fuel. In Britain, the death rate shoots up in winter. Objective sources estimate that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 winter deaths occur in Britain. They do not occur in Germany, Scandinavia or Holland because they are caused by a combination of poor building standards, inadequate pensions and high fuel prices. Cot deaths, too, may be related, but I shall confine my remarks to hypothermia, which is an almost uniquely British disease.
The Government do not yet seem to have adopted with any enthusiasm the EEC proposals under which it is hoped to introduce trials for an energy labelling scheme for houses in Cardiff just before Christmas. The scheme is to be conducted on a voluntary basis and in Cardiff alone. We need to know whether the Government are willing to consider introducing such arrangements. In Denmark an energy surveyor has to affix ratings to houses so that people know whether they are getting an energy-efficient house.
Such a scheme would probably be desirable in this country. We have a history of voluntary arrangements in this country, but when a crisis hits we opt for intervention, and perhaps the time has come for the Government to introduce a scheme for labelling houses—a kind of MOT test of their ability to retain heat or to be heated to a reasonable, civilised standard without costing the earth. A large number of small houses are still built without a central heating system being installed. Heating is supposed to be added by the occupier. Nothing in the building regulations for England and Wales—Scotland is different—says that an adequate heating system must be installed when a house is built, which is a major omission. I hope that the Minister will touch on at least some of the topics that I have raised.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Even at this rather late hour, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for raising this important subject. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) for participating in the debate, which gives me an opportunity to reaffirm in strong terms—very strong terms—the Government's commitment to energy efficiency. It is a firm commitment, which has been demonstrated in a range of effective programmes; it has produced results and we intend to build on it in the future.


I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will accept that the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to energy efficiency is genuine. The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend may not agree about everything, but I am sure that he would accept that she always speaks with commitment and conviction.
I hope that I do not need to spend too much time on the reasons for being committed to energy efficiency, many of which have already been mentioned. The primary reason is straightforward and economic. It resides in the extent of the opportunities for energy efficiency improvement. The size of the national energy bill, some £38 billion a year, and of the estimated savings, nearly £8 billion a year, is staggering. In industry and commerce alone, the total expenditure on energy last year was nearly £10 billion, which suggest that a savings potential of nearly £2 billion is achievable. Much of that can be achieved simply through low-cost, good housekeeping measures, and the rest by investment and good pay-back periods.
The narrow economic argument is not the only reason for being interested in energy efficiency, as all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have said. Another particularly important and topical issue is the environmental consequences, and clearly energy efficiency measures which help to minimise these consequences must be part of an overall package of measures to deal with these problems.
There are wider benefits relating to energy efficiency and perhaps I may enumerate some. Energy efficiency provides a valuable insurance policy against possible upsets on the supply side. It helps make the best possible use of our indigenous resources, leads to better growth and competitiveness, helps to create jobs, and brings social benefits in improving living conditions, especially for older and low income groups. However we consider this, there are no shortage of good reasons for taking energy efficiency seriously, and the Government do precisely that.
In the domestic sector the Energy Efficiency Office has done much to build up an awareness of the importance of energy efficiency in the home through its publicity programmes. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was generous enough to refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he was Secretary of State for Energy. We have provided consumers with practical information on how to save money by saving energy and we have worked with others—recently, I took an initiative with building societies—to reinforce this message.
We have been giving special attention to the problems of pensioners and low-income households. We have supported the development of over 450 community insulation projects which install draught proofing and loft insulation for people who would find it difficult to take these measures themselves. Over 500,000 homes have been treated under this scheme.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West raised his concern about the translation of the community programme to the adult training programme. The Training Commission and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Employment are directing themselves to this matter.
Under the homes insulation scheme operated by the Department of the Environment and the territorial departments, the Government have helped around 3·5 million people to install loft insulation, which over 90 per

cent. of homes now have. This scheme has recently targeted on low-income householders to ensure that help goes to those who need it most.
The hon. Gentleman asked some detailed questions, and I am assured that these matters are for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment; I shall ensure that they receive copies of his points, to which I am sure they will reply.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister's point about the number of homes that already have loft insulation is valid. The problem is that complacency has frequently set in among householders who have their 1 in or 2 in of insulation, which was all that was recommended 10 or 15 years ago. Now that the Government have decided to go for 6 in of insulation as a recommended standard, it seems time to stir the pot again and tell all those householders who think, "Loft insulation, we've got it," that it is time to have another look to see if they should increase it.

Mr. Morrison: If I gave the impression that I was complacent, that was not my intention. There is scope for improvement in every aspect, principally by the consumer.
We operate a range of programmes aimed at industry and commerce. The monitoring and targeting programme aims to develop energy management systems for 40 sectors of industry and commerce. Twenty-five such systems have been developed already, and have been installed on some 600 sites. They are producing savings averaging around 10 per cent. in the companies that install them, and total savings from this scheme amount to nearly £100 million.
The demonstrations programme aims to help new energy efficiency technologies get into the market place. More than 350 projects have been supported and savings amount to nearly £200 million.
Our research and development programme aims to help innovation by developing new energy efficiency technologies. One hundred and twenty-nine projects have been supported of many different types, including industrial plant and process and building services and design. However, our main objective is to get relevant advice direct to the consumer, which means activity in the regions through our network of regional energy efficiency officers. They help market our schemes, set up seminars and workshops, visit major energy users and point them towards sources of advice and practical help. In short, they bring the energy efficiency message home to those who can most benefit from it. We shall be providing our regional offices with more resources and better support in the future.
The programmes of the Energy Efficiency Office can be judged by their direct result. As I have already said, more than 500,000 low-income households have been treated under community insulation projects. Savings of nearly £100 million per year are being made through the monitoring and targeting programme, and savings of nearly £200 million per year are being achieved through the efficiency demonstration scheme. Furthermore, savings of more than £200 million per year have been identified through the former energy efficiency survey scheme.
Overall, therefore, the savings attributable to the activities of the Energy Efficiency Office amount to more than £500 million a year, arid more than 4 million consumers have been directly helped by our programme. Far from being insignificant, the resources devoted to


energy efficiency by the Government have been considerable, and they have risen substantially since 1983. Taking account of direct expenditure by the Energy Efficiency Office, the homes insulation scheme and community insulation projects, some £42 million in total was spent in 1983–84, while in 1987–88 expenditure on those programmes had doubled. The total spent in that year was some £84 million. To be honest, that compares with very much less when the Labour Government left office in 1979.
On a wider economic basis, the results are also very impressive. Despite the considerable fall in energy prices since 1983, there was a 7 per cent. improvement—worth more than £2 billion—in the efficiency with which energy was used across the economy between 1983 and 1987. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was concerned about the rate of improvement, and I can tell him that, in the United Kindom, which was previously well below the European average, it is now twice that average.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North referred to the energy audit. We are opposed to what the Commission was proposing as a draft directive; I was at that Council. We were opposed to it because there are no sanctions, so it would be ineffective, and it would require the householder to pay an average bill of about £200. I do not believe that that would be either acceptable or desirable in the way that it is presently proposed.
The Energy Efficiency Office has succeeded in establishing energy efficiency as a key issue, and raising awareness of its importance among consumers. Against that background, we have been considering where we can continue to be most effective. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that there is simply no point in spending taxpayers' money unnecessarily to subsidise people to do what they already know is in their interest.

Mr. Speller: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making a valid point about how much the Government have tried to do over the past years to encourage people to use energy efficiently in their homes. However, I have yet to see any sign of the gas or the electricity authorities showing an interest in reducing the demand for their products. I understand the economic illogic of that, but I have yet to see them saying that they would like to promote energy efficiency to the individual housewife.

Mr. Morrison: I think that my hon. Friend is perhaps less than fair to the gas and electricity industries—I shall deal specifically with the electricity industry in a moment. In my travels over the past 18 months, I have seen both industries running competitions to promote precisely what he and I would like to see—energy efficiency. I do not believe that my hon. Friend has given a totally fair critique of the industries, but no doubt they will read this debate carefully and pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said.
I hope that all hon. Members would agree that there is no point spending taxpayers' money unnecessarily to subsidise people to do what they already know is in their own interests. Therefore, we must consider carefully what the Government do to ensure that everything is properly directed. That is the background to the review, the results of which were announced in June.
The review concluded, among other things, that, since awareness of the need for energy efficiency was now fairly high, there is now less need than in the past for high-profile advertising programmes, expensive razzmatazz and the breakfasts to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred.

Mr. Kirkwood: I was never invited to one.

Mr. Morrison: Nor was I.
Hence, the case for large amounts of expenditure in this area now seems less compelling.
It is that firm base of achievement that allows us to move forward to a new phase in our activities. In that new phase, the emphasis will be on targeting key areas of energy use, and offering specific advice and technical support. We shall be developing new schemes with that objective.
One aspect of targeting means local delivery in response to local needs. In the new phase, much more attention will therefore be given to the work of the regional energy efficiency officers. We will be strengthening the financial and advisory support available to them, allowing them to offer a better service to industry and commerce in their regions.
One example of the more targeted approach to which we are moving, is the recent "Heat is on" campaign aimed specifically at three major energy-using sectors—chemicals, ceramics and metal. Those three sectors alone account for around half of industrial energy use, and we have tried to bring together the advice and support the EEO can offer from its various programmes to help consumers in those sectors. Meanwhile, other important work continues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North referred to combined heat and power and I heartily agree with him about its potential importance. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have provided strong support and encouragement for the development and application of economic CHP technology.
The Energy Efficiency Office has supported 25 research, development and demonstration projects featuring CHP plant in industry, buildings and communal heating schemes. We have also provided substantial funding towards studies to evaluate the feasibility of citywide combined heat and power district heating.
I believe that privatisation of the electricity industry will provide growing opportunities for private generation, including CHP. Our aim is to ensure that all economic sources of electricity supply will have fair access to the market.
For the first time independent generators will be able to compete on an equal footing with the two major generating companies being created from the CEGB. After privatisation the Director General of Electricity Supply will be able to investigate anti-competitive practices, and the privatised companies will also be subject to general competition law.
The Government will therefore be fulfilling their proper role—of providing fair market conditions. The CHP producers will be able to compete freely with other forms of power generation. The future of CHP will then depend not on further public funding but on whether it can compete successfully. I have every confidence that it will be able to do so. In view of its high thermal efficiency and


versatility to which my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North referred, CHP will be well placed to take every advantage of the new opportunities.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West was concerned about electricity privatisation. In our proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, we have taken full account of the need for energy efficiency while balancing it against the primary objective of introducing competition and private sector disciplines.
I do not believe that it would be right to require the industry to subsidise energy efficiency on the part of its consumers. That would be an unwelcome return to over-regulation, and it would force the industry to act uncommercially, so undermining the key objectives of privatisation.
What we have done in the Bill, however, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire knows, is to require the Director General of Electricity Supply to promote the efficient use of electricity, and we intend, in the licence, to insist that the industry tells the consumer how best to pursue this objective. I think that that answers the point made my my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North.
Turning to the greenhouse effect, the need to maintain sustainable economic development while protecting our natural environment is one of the most important challenges facing the world today, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is right to refer to the relevance of the greenhouse effect to our debate. However, we have to see this issue in a wider perspective. Fossil fuel burn is one important producer of carbon dioxide emissions and so contributes to the greenhouse effect, but other gases in the atmosphere also contribute.
At the same time, it has to be said that the United Kingdom accounts for only around 3 per cent. of world carbon dioxide emissions, and the problems are as yet imperfectly understood.
The time scales of the exact effect on world climate patterns and the possible rise in sea levels are uncertain. The United Kingdom will continue to play its full part in reducing these uncertainties as quickly as possible through co-ordinated international research. The Government will take whatever action is shown to be necessary as our understanding develops, but I also accept that we need to take action now where it is sensible to do so. It is clear that there is no single, simple solution, whether in energy efficiency or in nuclear power, but it is also clear that both these things have their part to play.
The Government certainly recognise the links between energy efficiency and the environment. All means of producing energy have some environmental consequences. and energy efficiency helps keep them to a minimum. That is one good reason among many for promoting energy efficiency.
We have had a useful debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this subject. I hope I have also been able to demonstrate the Government's full-hearted commitment to energy efficiency. The fact is that we have provided much more support for energy efficiency than any previous Government. And we have not simply thrown money indiscriminately at the problem. Our programmes have been built up carefully to ensure the maximum effectiveness and impact. We have an excellent record of achievement, and we are building on that firm basis to target our activities even more effectively.
Our programmes have directly benefited industry and commerce, low-income consumers and old-age pensioners, as well as bringing wider social and environmental advantages. This is a record of which the Government can be justly proud, and I commend it to the House.

Orders of the Day — Egg Industry

2 am

Sir Hal Miller: I welcome to the debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department with responsibility for the subject we are to discuss.
Contrary to some reports, I have at no time been lobbied by the National Farmers Union or by any producer organisations connected with the egg or poultry industries. I also want to make it plain that I have never sought, publicly or privately, the resignation of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), whose services to the Department of Health I much admired and supported.
I welcome the speedy reaction of Ministers and the open and responsible action they are seeking to take. Only a fortnight ago, I rolled out of bed at 7 am and groaned as I heard the radio report of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's remarks. I stopped an hour later in the Cotswolds for breakfast and appreciated the extent of the worry that had been caused to housewives. I realised what a problem we had on our hands. But no one could have foreseen the rapidity with which it developed or the size that it assumed.
The test of the measures announced by the Government is whether they will restore the housewife's confidence in eggs. Anything else that we do for producers is merely applying sticking plaster. The test must be whether we are doing enough to restore the confidence of the housewife. I wish to resolve the uncertainty in the shopper's mind.
The plain fact is that the housewife suspended her purchase of eggs. Institutional purchases subject to the Department of Health had already been suspended after letters from the regional health authorities to homes and hospitals. That could account for about 12 per cent. of egg consumption, and some people put it as high as 20 per cent. That was a serious blow. But this is a cyclical industry. There was a poor start to 1988, but matters improved in the middle of the summer, with a reduction in chick placings, and the industry was looking forward to 1989 following a successful Christmas season. It is ironic that the housewife suspended her purchases precisely in the week when normally most eggs are sold.
To give the House an idea of what is involved, I quote figures supplied by the central egg agency in my constituency. In the corresponding week in 1987, egg producers shipped more than 13,000 cases. This year, the figure was just under 6,900. In the following week in 1987, the figure was 9,100. This year it was 1,500. That is not a drop of one sixth, but one sixth of shipments. In the week just concluded, instead of 9,100 in 1987, the figure was 2,100. That is a serious decline by anyone's standards. I shall not bore the House with all the prices, but at 30 November the price for grade 2 eggs—that is what my wife buys—was 55·56p per dozen. The week before last, the price was 28p and last week it was 26p. It does not need much imagination to understand what has happened. If we compare those figures with the production cost, which should be put at about 45p per dozen, the consequences for the producer are all too clear.
One can understand the producers' feelings of anguish and anxiety, because the exact nature of that with which they have been charged has never been properly defined. Those who have carried out tests regularly have been

tarred with the same brush of suspicion as the producers of contaminated eggs. They regard that as most unfair, quite apart from being most damaging to their reputation and business. It is worth bearing in mind that many of those businesses are family businesses which have been built up over the last 20 years and involve exactly those people whom it has been the Government's business, to encourage with such success.
My concern has been to identify, define and locate the risk so that we can deal with it. We have already dealt with similar problems in agricultural food production. Outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, swine vesicular disease or fowl pest are confined to the farms where they have been reported and no movement of animals or feed is allowed on or off such farms, while the rest of the industry can continue its work. The housewife's confidence, which is all-important, is not affected because she knows that the necessary measures have been taken to confine the trouble to where it has been identified and located.
I hope that we shall achieve this in the case of salmonella enteriditis which is prevalent in our laying flocks. I do not necessarily believe that it is prevalent in eggs. The extent of its prevalence must be put into context. I have had an answer today confirming that there have been 49 outbreaks affecting 1,000 people arising from the consumption, not the production, of eggs. That leaves wide open the question whether it is in the distribution chain, in the storage or in the kitchen or perhaps comes about through human infection.
The former Department of Health and Social Security's figures show that there were 450 outbreaks of salmonella in 1987 affecting 26,000 people, of which at least 20 per cent. were traced to people returning from holidays in one of our EEC partner countries which I had better not name here. That compares with 49 outbreaks affecting 1,000 people of which it is believed that 70 per cent. involved free range hens and eggs. Those people who seek to blame all this trouble on battery producers—we should remember that many producers have both battery and free range hens—have been wide of the mark.
Let me return to the uncertainty that surrounds the matter. Are the tests being carried out satisfactorily? Do they define whether the disease is present? Can anyone tell us what the risk and effect is? So far, we have heard of about 49 outbreaks in 1,000 people, but we have not been told whether they felt off colour for a day, whether they were seriously ill or whether they were mortally affected.
When this suspicion is about, the prudent housewife wonders whether she should buy eggs. The Government's advertisement does not help her make her decision. It says, in effect, "Buy eggs, but beware", but of what is she being asked to beware? Those 49 outbreaks must have been identified to be reported. I presume that they can be located from that identification. Action should be taken to confine the disease to the place where it has been located. I have learned from a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that under an order that some of us may have a little difficulty in pronouncing called the Zoonoses Order 1975, powers exist to
restrict the movement of animals, birds or their products, including eggs, from any place where salmonella has been found present".

Mr. Tony Speller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the crux of the problem is not movement,


but that there is a perception among the public—rightly or wrongly—that the fowl that lay our eggs are fed a somewhat unsuitable diet? The perception has nothing to do with candour or movement. However, until the industry in which both my hon. Friend and I have a constituency interest, can say that our fowls' food is such and such, we will never get faith back in the chicken or egg markets.

Sir Hal Miller: My hon. Friend has a great deal more experience of these matters than me. I will consider feed in a moment, but if my hon. Friend will forgive me I want to finish the point that I was making about the need to explain to the people what the outbreaks are, where they took place and what action is being taken to contain them.
I referred to other agricultural products which could be confined to the affected farm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) will be aware, one must consider the feed that is given to pigs. One must consider its constituent parts and also its preparation on the farm.
The tests are very important for the responsible producers who undertake them. If 60 or 70 per cent. of the industry is undertaking the tests why should its products be tarred unfairly with the brush of suspicion if the tests are adequate? If they are not adequate, why can we not have a test that is adequate? As well as the producers carrying out tests, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also carrying out tests. The Ministry station in Wolverhampton responsible for the midlands has carried out tests on more than 100 farms, but it has not found one positive result. The producers in my constituency who have carried out tests have produced similar results.
I want to give priority to restoring the housewife's confidence. That must be the acid test. On that basis, I was a little disappointed that the health measures about the food and monitoring came at the end of today's statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am grateful to Ministers for introducing the voluntary codes with such speed. However, I had hoped that we could have heard that it was the Government's intention to proceed to a statutory code for better enforcement. The housewife wants to know that there is statutory protection available for food to allow her to feel confident when she buys food for her family.
The Minister's statement alludes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North about monitoring animal feed and strengthening controls relating to imported protein. There have been rumours that unsuitable elements have entered the food chain through feed preparation—even including offal and, some suggest, diseased offal or deceased birds. That aspect should be brought out more into the open, so that the public may be confident about what is going into the chicken, and therefore about what is unlikely to be contained in the egg.
The housewife is paramount in all of this, but I turn now to the producer. I ask my hon. Friend whether the balance between the two short-term measures announced today is fixed and final, or whether I can persuade him to give more attention to the desirability of culling more hens from the laying flock. My constituents strongly believe, as I do, that there will be a stepped decline in egg

consumption and that the only way to restore market order in the medium to long term will be to reduce the flock.
As I said before, earlier this summer producers had already taken steps to reduce their laying flock. They now believe that more hens than the 4 million mentioned in this afternoon's statement should be taken out. If necessary, they might be prepared to accept a lower payment for them, provided that not just the hens are taken out but the associated equipment. In other words, they are asking for a lever scheme to reduce the size of the laying flock.
Over the past two weeks, I have tried to ensure that definite information will be made available about the nature of the risk, that it will be confined to the affected farms, or that, if it is not possible for it to be so confined, that a slaughter policy exists to ensure the removal of that risk. All those measures are designed to restore the confidence of the housewife, who alone can determine the producers' future.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) to debate the important matter of the salmonella that has allegedly contaminated this country's egg production.
The egg producers whom I represent and I welcome the speed with which the Ministry acted to save the industry. It took only two weeks for a decision to be made, to devise a workable system for producing £17 million of aid, and to help the culling of 2 million birds and the purchase of 15 million eggs daily. Not only that, but my right hon. and hon. Friends have produced a seven-point hygiene plan for tackling the problems of salmonella.
If the matter could rest there we could say that the whole industry was safe and the problem was solved, but I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to pursue the policies that resulted in today's announcement. I do not feel that the public—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove has said—are clear about the position. In my view, two aims should now be vigorously pursued: first, to inform the public that eggs are safe to consume, and, secondly, to take further measures to protect the industry.

Mr. Speller: I hope that my hon. Friend does not mean that it is more important to say that eggs are safe to eat and thus protect the industry than to remember those who consume the product. Does he agree that our hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) was perhaps a trifle defeatist? Our aim must surely be to get the egg industry up and running again and to give confidence to the housewife. We can do that only by starting at the root of the problem—the feed—and then making people confident enough to eat what has been fed on it.

Mr. Hind: I accept that. But the information available to us points overwhelmingly to the fact that eggs are safe for the public to eat, and that message must be put across clearly.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was asked on Friday afternoon, when he made a statement, whether he agreed with the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) in a television interview that most egg production in the country was affected by salmonella. He made it clear that that was not correct. We have got to


push that message, but so far the advertising campaign that has unfortunately become necessary to impress it on the public's mind has been surrounded by too many reservations. The fact is that 13 million eggs are consumed per day—or were; the figure is only half that now—and there have been only 1,500 cases of salmonella and about 50 outbreaks. We understand that the source is roughly 10 farms in the whole country. The message to the public is that they have a 200 million to one chance of catching salmonella from eggs, and that if they cook the eggs correctly they reduce that chance to virtually nothing.
The media do not seem to have got that message very clear. They are being extremely confused by the barrage of expert opinion that has suddenly come forward. Tonight on the 9 o'clock news we heard again from Professor Lacey of Leeds university, who repeated that salmonella had made egg consumption dangerous. But he does not seem to be producing any evidence.
The Department of Health laboratories have reported from their research on 40 cases that they have traced the cause back to eggs. I understand that a private health investigator called Mr. North, who was interviewed on television this evening, says that he is investigating those 40 cases afresh, and that in his view they have a common factor—poor handling of food, in this case eggs. He has drawn the conclusion that the salmonella cases investigated by the Department of Health have much more in common with the mishandling and poor storage of eggs than with their production.
Ministers in both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health, together with their research scientists, must consider that factor. A classic case of salmonella poisoning has been reported this week. Turkey, which had been frozen, was served at a dinner, but because it had not been properly cooked 40 of the guests suffered from salmonella poisoning. That proves the point that handling, storage and cooking have an important role to play.
The results of research into salmonella in eggs, where salmonella has been excluded, have not been published. The Department of Health is in possession of evidence that is based on research to which hon. Members have not had access. If the results of that research were to be published, it would help to reassure the public that eggs are safe to consume. Those who are connected with agriculture, health and hygiene could evalute the quality of the research and draw appropriate conclusions. At the moment, there is far too much confusion. Ministers could play a major role in helping to solve that problem by publishing the results of the research.
Ministers are also pursuing the aim of protecting the industry by making it ready for the day when the demand for eggs recover. I feel sure that that day is not far off. Britain's egg-producing industry is 99 per cent. efficient. We want it to remain just as efficient. Ministerial plans will help the industry to remain as productive and as able to meet demand as it was in the past.
We must also try to protect jobs. Twenty people in my constituency who were employed in the egg-producing industry have already lost their jobs. That is a disaster in an area where there is high unemployment. Eggs will be imported. If there is less control over the hygienic production of imported eggs, that will increase, not

decrease, the chances of salmonella infection. Not the least important point is that the cost of eggs, an essential food, will rise.
Today some of my hon. Friends seemed almost to resent the rescue plans that Ministers have introduced to protect egg producers. My hon. Friends forget that Ministers are also protecting consumers. It is in the interests of consumers that the industry should be able to provide adequate, cheap and hygienic supplies of eggs when demand recovers. It is as much in the interests of consumers as it is in the interests of the industry that my hon. Friends should support the measures that Ministers have introduced. Probably the most important factor is that it is in all our interests that the British egg-producing industry should remain strong and able to provide this most important food.
I was sad about the hysterical reception of the statements about egg production. The industry is geared up to meet a high demand. The 50 per cent. drop in egg production in my constituency and in many other parts of the country was felt almost immediately. Chickens cost 50p a week to feed. Chicks are constantly being born to replace the egg-laying birds. It is a very intensive industry, with high overheads. The drop in demand has had a disastrous effect on producers. We have witnessed the immediate results.
We must not forget that the egg-producing industry needs cereals. There will be a knock-on effect. If egg production is reduced, the cereal mountain will grow larger. The effect will work its way through our agriculture industry.
I repeat, and I hope that the press will bear it in mind, that the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service has recently carried out research across the country involving thousands of eggs from 106 different locations and did not find one case of salmonella. Samples of eggs have been taken from producers in my constituency and not one case of salmonella has been found. I understand that eggs with salmonella have been found in 10 farms in the country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that that is the case so that we can reassure the public that salmonella is limited to that number of outlets. At least that will give some reassurance.
Regrettably, we have lost a Minister because of this matter. It is quite clear that what was said by the Department of Health has led to the crisis in the egg-producing industry. We have lost an able Minister who has made a major contribution to the House, and politics will be poorer for not having her at the Dispatch Box. But there is one clear lesson. What we say as public figures will be taken notice of and we must be extremely careful in our statements. At this stage, we can be clear and careful in our statements and repeat the message that there is a 200 million to one chance of catching salmonella from eggs. That is less chance than I have of being killed on my way home, driving my car through the streets of London. I would be safer eating half a dozen eggs than driving three or four miles to my home. Every time we step off a pavement we are in more danger of being killed than we are of catching salmonella from eating an egg. Those are the statistics, yet people are not afraid of getting into their cars to go to work or of walking on a pavement.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and I will be saying to our constituents that on Christmas day, before our turkey and Christmas pudding, we shall enjoy a plateful of eggs florentine in the


safe assumption that we will not catch salmonella. At the same time, we shall be helping and supporting the egg industry in Britain. I hope that the rest of the House will feel able to do the same.

Mr. Ron Davies: If I were the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), I would not bet on my chances of survival—especially if he is in front of me when I drive home at 4 o'clock this morning.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) on his good fortune in winning a high place in the ballot, which allows us to debate this important subject at an early hour, and his wisdom in choosing a subject which is to the fore of public attention. I very much welcome the way in which he introduced the debate. It was measured and rational and made a pleasant change from some of the remarks that we have come to associate with those who have commented on the egg industry in recent weeks. I also extend my personal welcome to the Minister, who I understand has come hot-foot from Brussels. He has also brought back a cold. I am sure that he would have wished to have returned in different circumstances, but we welcome him nevertheless. He is doubly unfortunate in that he has a cold and he also has to answer for the actions of his ministerial colleagues. I suspect that his task will not be easy.
The subject for debate is the egg industry. I make no apology for turning my attention to this afternoon's statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That statement was welcomed by the hon. Members for Bromsgrove and for Lancashire, West but I suspect that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove queried the effectiveness of the statement and has looked more carefully at the details of the statement than he could have at 3.30 this afternoon. If he has, I suspect that he has reached the same conclusions as I have. The scheme announced by the Minister is deficient in each of its three components.
The three principal objectives of the scheme are to reduce the egg surplus, to reduce egg-laying capacity and to reassure the housewife about the safety and wholesomeness of eggs.
The Minister announced that the first measure will be to
provide a payment to egg packers for the destruction of surplus eggs for a period of four weeks from 21 December. The payment will be at the rate of 30p per dozen eggs on up to 1·1 million cases.
Optimistically, the Minister continued by saying that that
will tackle the overhang of eggs in the system.
As a result of the events of the past couple of weeks there are now more than 400 million surplus eggs, many of which have been in the hands of producers for several weeks.
If we compare the £17 million which has been made available with the Minister's first commitment to pay 30p per dozen up to 1·1 million cases, we get some idea of the magnitude of the problem. Thirty pence is the minimum amount necessary to produce a dozen eggs, taking into account food and limited packaging. The cost of 1·1 million cases would be £9·9 million but, 1·1 million cases covers fewer than the current surplus of 400 million eggs. Therefore, the first bite of that £17 million is £9·9 million to remove 1·1 million cases of eggs.
Since the statement, there has been further surplus egg production which will take another £150,000 out of the available money. That is the rate at which surplus eggs are being produced. By Boxing day, a week today, at the current rate of production, a further £2,720,000 will be needed to purchase surplus production. By new year's eve a further £1,875,000 will have been used to purchase surplus eggs. If we assume that the second measure—the culling of 4 million birds—will take £1 per head, by the end of next week the £17 million will have been used up and we shall still be producing 15 million surplus eggs a day.
If the Minister had come to the Dispatch Box with some humility and said that he was prepared to review the scheme at a later date in the light of take-up and so on, I would not be particularly concerned. However, he made it clear that £17 million is the maximum amount to be made available. In the coming weeks the small producers, those who have been hit hardest during the past two weeks, will be hit even harder.
I have already mentioned the second element of the scheme—the culling of part of the flock. I understand that the culling of 10 per cent. of the flock will be put in hand during the next four weeks. However, the British Poultry Federation and the National Farmers Union—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove alluded to his constituency experience—suggested that between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of the flock will have to be culled if production is to be reduced to a level at which surplus eggs can be controlled by the money available. I suspect that the cull will be less than required, which is singularly unfortunate for the small producer. The large producer will be prepared to gamble over the next forthnight or three weeks in the hope that the price of eggs will stabilise and that moult will be induced, and will take other measures to control production, but the small producer will be faced with accepting the outgoers scheme or going bankrupt. Again the small producer will suffer.
There is much unfairness in the scheme announced today because the industry has already made considerable losses. I was speaking to a local egg producer last weekend, who told me that he has been incurring a loss of 10p or 15p on every dozen eggs that he sells. It has been reported that producers have had to slaughter tens of thousands of hens that were not in production. The statement offers them nothing, and if people were forced by economics to take action last week or the week before, no compensation will be available, which is unfair. I hope that when the Minister considers the details of the scheme he will take particular note of that.
The third element of the package was to restore the public's confidence—a point of which the hon. Members for Bromsgrove and Lancashire, West made much play. It is important to restore confidence in egg production, otherwise no amount of short-term measures will be successful and the industry will be decimated, which Labour Members do not want.
I suspect that there is such a deep and fundamental conflict between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health that it is not possible to reconcile the two conflicting approaches, and for that fundamental reason the statement made by the Minister this afternoon was defective.
Despite all the opportunities that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has had and all the questons that have been asked, a statement has not been made about the level of infection among home-produced


eggs. I remind the hon. Member for Lancashire, West that we continually import eggs from Spain, Belgium and Denmark. The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but we continually import eggs and should be concerned about the problems of salmonella not only in this country but western Europe.
This afternoon, significantly, the Minister said that all the evidence was that the incidence of salmonella enteritidis was very low in the laying flock. The Minister chose to say not that the incidence of salmonella in eggs was low but that all the evidence was that salmonella enteritidis was very low in the laying flock. If that is so, what is the Government's evidence and when will they make it publicly available?
I suspect that the truth is that MAFF has conducted no extensive survey among the laying flock and that it is relying on reports that it has received from environmental health departments of local authorities up and down the land. If that is the case, MAFF has a clear responsibility to publish the information that it has, and, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said, to identify those producers who currently have infected stock or are known to be placing salmonella-infected eggs on to the national market. That is a simple step. In view of the grave crisis that is now threatening the egg industry and the fact that it extends across all sectors, as has been rightly pointed out, whether or not they are guilty and whether or not they are producing clean products, there is a clear opportunity for the Ministry to take action to ensure that that information comes into the public domain.
However, there will still be a doubt remaining in the minds of the public about whether they are receiving honest treatment at the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Given the Ministry's actions over the past several years, that is not surprising. In 1981, the then newly elected Conservative Government deliberately decided to weaken the code that had been the subject of consultation with the industry until 1979. That showed one fundamental truth, and that is that the too-close relationship between MAFF and the National Farmers Union is not in the long-term interests of MAFF or of the National Farmers Union. It is certainly not in the long-term or short-term interests of the consumer, because the consumer is now suffering.

Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Conservative Members are as concerned as he is about this matter? We have not been approached by the NFU. I have been approached by my own local consumers. The NFU has not spoken to me about it. That is the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller). There has been an awful lot of mischief-making in the press about the matter.

Mr. Ron Davies: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not talking about representations that he might or might not have received during the past couple of weeks or so, I am talking about the relationship which has historically existed between the Conservative party and the National Farmers Union. I am talking about a series of events that took place in 1981, which are the precise cause of the problems that we now have in the industry.
A report in today's edition of The Independent refers to the Government's decision to reduce funding for research into salmonella. It states:
It stopped the research at a time of crisis in public confidence in the food and farming industries, but also in the face of increasing numbers of academic papers suggesting that it is the Ministry's own commitment to the poultry and feed industries which has slowed important reforms in the regulation of the poultry and egg business.
In 1986, a vet employed by the Ministry of Agriculture published a paper which recorded the failure of regulations introduced in 1981. They had been framed to safeguard the public from salmonella, had been weakened after industry protests at their cost, and were finally brought into force in much weaker form than intended.
The regulations have not worked. At least 10 per cent. of samples of the animal products produced in this country and fed to poultry is contaminated with salmonella; up to a third of samples of such products which are imported were infected in 1985.
That accusation was substantiated by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). Another article in The Independent states:
The Tory MP for Boston with Holland, Sir Richard Body, a former chairman of the Commons Agriculture Committee and a farmer, fears that guidelines issued in 1981 were weakened after pressure from the feed processing industry. He said: 'I was told on very good authority that there was a much stronger order being drafted. The idea was that all poultry should be examined for salmonella, because those who had been carrying out an examination believed that the amount of salmonella in the birds was rather serious.'
Those were the comments of an hon. Member who is respected on both sides of the House. Moreover, the vet is not an anonymous leaker of information; he is Dr. Matthews, who wrote in the State Veterinary Journal:
There was considerable resistance to these proposals".
John Field, the chairman of the United Kingdom Renderers Association said:
The original proposals were very expensive, but there was a distinct change of heart when the Conservatives came into office. They were happy to drop the idea of a code and settle for random testing.
Those comments appeared in yestereday's edition of The Observer.
In case there is any doubt about the veracity of those statements, let me refer the House to a draft document produced by the Secretary of State for Wales, who was then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That document, produced in April 1980 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Welsh Office Agriculture Department, said:
The earlier proposals were formulated on the basis that all domestic plants processing animal protein for inclusion in animal feed should be licensed. Licences would be issued only if the process itself was capable of killing salmonellae and other disease organisms and the layout, construction and operation of the processing plant were such that recontamination of the finished product was prevented. Similar standards were to be required of the imported product. The Departments wish to record their indebtedness and to express their thanks to the organisations for the response which was made in the ensuing correspondence and discussions on those proposals.
That is what is supposed to have happened, but the report continues:
The new proposals reflect the wish of Ministers that in the present economic climate the Industry should itself determine how best to produce a high-quality product, and that the role of Government should be restricted to prescribing a standard for the product and to enforcing observance of that standard. Ministers take the view that this simpler approach would have


the incidental advantage of enabling the Industry to prepare for more stringent measures which might have to be taken at some future date.
What happened to that enforcement? Inspections were carried out and it was recognised that salmonella was contaminating feed that was being fed to the British poultry flock. In a third of cases, infected feed was being distributed but in not one of the cases was a prosecution instigated by the Ministry. That is the Ministry's record in this matter.
It was little surprise when increasing evidence of salmonella emerged earlier in 1988. The statement in August this year by the Government's chief medical officer warned the public of the dangers of salmonella and—as successive Ministers have told us in parliamentary answers—the rise in salmonella reporting was constant during the summer months. But no urgent action was taken then. The Government's only response was to cut research. Today's edition of The Independent says:
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is directly responsible for blocking progress in the elimination of salmonella infection in the 35 million laying hens, and nearly 500 million table fowl slaughtered annually in this country.
As the present scare was gaining momentum last month, the Ministry told food scientists in the government-sponsored Institute of Food Research, near Bristol, that it would no longer fund their research into providing birds with a natural protection from the salmonella bacteria.
That is not much of a response. The Government recognised the increasing incidence of the disease, but the only action that they were prepared to take was to stop specific research designed to protect the laying flock from the problem of salmonella. They did not tighten the codes on rendering or on producing flocks. All that they did was to cut research. It was not until that slip by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, whether inadvertent or calculated, that we saw any action from MAFF. It was not until 5 December—several days after the hon. Lady made her statement—that the new code of practice was introduced by MAFF.
That new code still does not have statutory force or additional resources to ensure that it is properly followed. This week's edition of Farmers Weekly notes that we are due for yet another code—presumably a super-code. It states:
Farmers cannot guarantee that their eggs and chickens are salmonella-free by testing, according to a veterinary spokesman.
In an unattributable briefing, arranged by the Ministry of Agriculture, the spokesman told FARMERS WEEKLY that the guarantee could only be offered by testing every bird and egg to destruction.
The only way to minimise the risk of infection was by following a new code of practice for commercial laying flocks, due to be published by the ministry next week.
Will the Minister tell us what status that new super-code will have? Will it be mandatory? Will producers be required to state that they are complying with the code? Will the Ministry take it on itself to publish the list of those producers who comply with the code? If there is to be a prospect of restoring public confidence in the poultry industry, that is the course of action that must be taken.
I have plenty more arguments to deploy, if my hon. Friends wish me to entertain them for longer. Let us have a look at the dispute between MAFF and the Department of Health which led to the resignation of the Under-Secretary of State. There can be only one of two possibilities. Either she was wrong, and therefore properly resigned or she was right, and therefore improperly resigned.
If the Under-Secretary of State was wrong in her statement, why was that statement not immediately disowned by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries arid Food? Why did he not on the Monday make it abundantly clear that she was inaccurate in her statement? If he had done that, the industry would have been spared a fortnight of heartbreak and taxpayers would have been saved at least £18 million.
It may well have been that the hon. Lady was right. If she was, it merely demonstrates that, despite all the lessons of the past 12 months, there is still an air of complacency in the Department. It gives me no great pleasure to say that I fear that the measures introduced today will not restore confidence in the industry or reassure consumers, and that what is intended to be a short-term palliative and a bailing-out measure for the industry for this month will be the start of a much longer, sorrier saga.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): We have had an interesting debate and I shall do my best in the remaining time to answer as many of the questions as I can.
I start by expressing my personal sorrow and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the news of the death of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). He was much respected on both sides of the House, not least for his knowledgeable contributions to agriculture debates. His death is a sad loss to the House and to his party. I should be grateful if our condolences could please be conveyed to his family.
This has been a well-informed and helpful debate. I must express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) for initialing it, and at the same time to express my recognition of his staunch advocacy on behalf of the egg industry during the past fortnight. He has not been alone in that and here tonight are other hon. Members whose interest has been apparent throughout that period. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who has spoken, and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench.
Perhaps, it would be helpful if I were to provide the House with some facts and figures about the significance of the egg industry to the economy of the United Kingdom. The output of the egg industry is worth about £500 million a year at the farm gate and perhaps twice that at retail level. There are about 35,000 farmers who depend in whole or in part on their earnings from eggs, and more than 3,000 egg packing stations provide employment for at least 15,000 people. Of course, a great many other people are engaged in distributing, marketing and selling eggs after they have been packed.
It is not a small, unimportant industry with which we are concerned. However, we all acknowledge that it is an industry with a problem. It is a fact that the number of outbreaks of food poisoning linked to eggs has increased this year, and that the number of people from whom the new salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 has been isolated has increased. Indeed, 51 outbreaks this year is 51 too many. My views on this were made quite clear to the industry very shortly after I became involved with the issues and before the events of the past fortnight caused a


slide in the demand for eggs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health have stressed that the problem must be kept in perspective. The number of reported cases of food poisoning from salmonella linked to eggs is very small by comparison with the 30 million eggs consumed a day and the 200 million consumed a week.
By the summer, it was clear that there was a new and growing problem from salmonella enteritidis phage 4 type linked to eggs. As a result of that information, the Government acted immediately to tackle the problem at every point in the production chain. Among other initiatives, that led to the publication of codes of practice to apply to commercial and breeding flocks. However, those two codes of practice are only the start and we have been preparing other steps, which will include—as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced this afternoon while I was at an Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels—more stringent bacteriological monitoring of animal protein for animal feed, the registering of breeding flocks and hatcheries for hygiene control purposes and the strengthening of the licensing provision related to imported animal protein. Those steps are designed to tackle the problem of this particular strain of salmonella and to reduce infection of the egg-laying flock.
My Department has also been working closely with the chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, and officials of the Department of Health over the advice given to consumers. Some reports suggested that the advice of the chief medical officer has been questioned. I do not believe that to be so. Sir Donald Acheson is a most distinguished figure in the medical profession. His advice is excellent and it should be followed in full. I should also emphasise that, in the past two weeks, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I worked together closely during the absence of my right hon. Friend on urgent Government business in Montreal and Brussels.
The uncertainty over the implications of salmonella enteritidis has caused a sharp decline in egg sales. There is no doubt that that has caused acute practical and financial difficulties for the egg industry. As my right hon. Friend told the House earlier today, the Government have decided, in these exceptional circumstances, to introduce two short-term measures. The first will provide a payment to egg packers for the destruction of surplus eggs at the rate of 30p a dozen eggs on up to 1·1 million cases over a four-week period. There are 360 eggs in a case. That represents nearly half the normal supply. The second measure will be introduced to help the industry to reduce the size of the egg-laying flock. It will provide for payment for a bird aged between 18 weeks and 30 weeks. The scheme will enable up to 4 million hens—roughly equivalent to 10 per cent. of the laying flock—to be slaughtered under the Ministry's supervision.
Those two short-term measures, taken together, are designed to assist the egg industry to adjust to new market conditions. I shall cover the details of the scheme later when I answer hon. Members' questions.
We hope that the actions that we have announced today, in conjunction with the advertising campaign that sets out the advice of the chief medical officer and presents

the facts to consumers, will quickly help to restore order to the egg market in the interests of consumers and everyone working in that important sector of the food industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West highlighted the question of the poor handling of food and the effect that that has on hygiene. It is true that poor kitchen hygiene is an important factor in causing food poisoning—it always has been. A campaign for hygiene in the home will be launched in January in conjunction with the Department of Health. A leaflet will be made available nationally through supermarkets, doctors' surgeries, health visitors and libraries. Further initiatives are planned for schools and catering establishments. We must continue, however, to tackle the problem at every stage in the chain, and that is our intention.
I was asked about the tests on eggs carried out by producers and packers. The level of infection in flocks is very low. An enormous number of eggs would have to be tested to be able to say safely that the statistical probability was that a flock was salmonella-free. I was asked about the feed for chickens. The recycling of animal protein in processing plants, which has happened for many years, is covered by the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981. The rendering involved utilises high temperatures which should kill salmonella organisms.
I was asked where salmonellae have been found. Salmonella enteritidis has been isolated from the few layer-breeding flocks and commercial laying flocks. The organism may be found in the gut or in the ovary. The most effective means of detecting the organism in a flock is by taking samples from the environment in a poultry house. It has also been isolated from animal feed on rare occasions.
It was asked whether these tests were reliable. There are two sorts of test. The first is used to determine whether salmonella is prevalent in the environment—the one I am discussing now. The second is used to determine whether live chickens suffer from the strain of salmonella under scrutiny this morning. The environmental tests are reliable. I am told by the chief veterinary officer that the bacteriological isolation techniques are extremely sensitive and reliable. Use is made of a pre-enrichment technique to ensure that latent salmonellae present are encouraged to grow on the culture plate.
I have been asked whether there was a simple test to discover whether live chickens suffered from this strain of salmonella. Again, I am informed by the chief veterinary officer that no simple test has yet been devised anywhere to determine this. We must bear in mind—this has been well known for a long time—that there are about 1,800 different types of salmonella.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove suggested that we are not taking enough laying hens out of the laying flock. This is a matter of fine judgment. My hon. Friend will have noted that we are paying to take young birds at the beginning of their laying cycle out of the flock. To have paid for the culling of old hens would have run the risk of paying farmers to do something that they would have done anyway. We hope that taking out young birds will have the maximum effect on over-supply, and it means that the effects will last for about a year. If we take out too many young birds now, and the market recovers sufficiently in a year's time, we shall merely have opened the door to a flood of imports. Indeed, that fear was expressed in the debate.
I was also asked whether it was possible to use the zoonoses order to follow up cases that are reported to the state veterinary service. I am informed that the order is being used to pursue cases of reported salmonella poisoning, and that it will go on being used in that way.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked whether there were controls on the domestic production of processed animal protein. I have already covered that, but I emphasise that all protein processing plants are being inspected by my officials on a regular three-monthly basis, in addition to any monitoring carried out by the plants themselves. If salmonella contamination is found in any of the plants' production, a notice is served on the owners requiring them to ensure that all the product conforms with the required bacteriological standard—that is to say, there must be no salmonella—within a specific time, after which a re-inspection visit takes place.
One of my hon. Friends asked about the number of food poisoning cases during the past few years. The figure for 1987—I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food mentioned this during his statement—is about 20,000 reported cases of food poisoning. In 1988, we would expect an increased proportion of cases to be caused by salmonella enteriditis and for the first 10 months of the year there have been 1,000 reported cases of that form of food poisoning in eggs.
As I promised, I shall deal with some of the details of the scheme and the questions that have arisen. There is some doubt about when the egg industry scheme comes into operation. It will come into operation on Wednesday 21 December. From that date, packers will be able to offer quantities of eggs equal to their weekly throughput. Many people have asked how they should apply. Packers in England should apply to their Ministry regional office; those in Wales should apply to the Welsh Office; and those in Scotland and Northern Ireland should apply to the respective Agriculture Departments.
It has been asked, although not during this debate, why only packers are involved in the scheme. Helping packers to take their surplus eggs off the market is the simplest and quickest way to help all producers. Once those eggs have been removed. the market will be strengthened and packers will be able to buy more eggs. But producers will benefit directly under the scheme for the slaughter of pullets. The scheme that was formulated during the week would normally have taken officials in the Ministry several weeks, if not months, to formulate properly. In this case, we decided to go through the packers.
There is anxiety about a public health risk from the eggs that will be destroyed. There should be no health risk because the eggs will be either buried or incinerated, under supervision, at approved sites.
I shall try to answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Caerphilly about the slaughter of hens scheme. The immediate aim of the scheme is to assist egg producers to get rid of hens that they no longer require because of the fall in the egg market. More generally, the scheme aims to restore a better balance between supply and demand by removing up to 4 million hens. That will help all egg producers, including those who do not participate in the scheme. Egg producers will be invited to apply to the Ministry saying how many hens they wish to slaughter. There will be a minimum of 500. Some scaling-down of applications will be done if the total of applications exceeds the ceiling of 4 million for the United

Kingdom, of which 3,456,000 is the figure for England and Wales. Depending on uptake, the scheme will cost up to £6·8 million in compensation, plus about £1·2 million for operational costs.
Some hon. Members asked today why the figure of 4 million has been chosen. It is because it represents 10 per cent. of the total laying flock and up to 45 per cent. of birds in that age group. It should be enough to allow the industry to adjust to reduced demand. We have chosen the age group from 18 to 30 weeks because we want to take out those birds in the early part of egg production and thereby produce the maximum possible effect on supply. Any owner of domestic fowls who wishes to slaughter 500 or more eligible birds can apply for the benefits of the scheme.
There is concern about how the carcases will be disposed of. That will depend on individual circumstances, but local authorities, including water authorities, will be consulted on the most appropriate means to do that.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend accept that egg producers are faced with the prospect of digging holes and disposing of the carcases, and that the scheme that he is proposing will greatly help them to dispose of the 2 million carcases?

Mr. Ryder: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I confirm that that is the case. All sorts of advice and assistance will be given by vets, local authorities and local MAFF regional offices which are receiving instructions from us.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised a number of further questions. I am trying to cover as many as possible and I apologise to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) for delaying his debate, but it is important, in view of the number of questions asked during the debate—

Mr. Allen McKay: I can assure the Minister that my egg farmers will be interested in the debate.

Mr. Ryder: I am grateful to hear that. If it were another time of day, I should be just as interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's debate as he is to hear this debate.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked whether the schemes were deficient. I have tried to explain how the eggs will be destroyed. The process will last for not more than four weeks. In a brief meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Brussels earlier this evening, he asked me to emphasise the fact that it was a four-week period, that the final figures for the scheme had been announced and that there will be no change in Government policy. I know that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to know whether there were second thoughts on the Government's part, and I have it from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that that is not the case.
I hope that, in my speech, which has lasted for about 30 minutes, I have answered most of the questions. If I have overlooked any questions, I shall be more than happy to answer them as soon as possible, either by letter or by any other means because it is important that everything should be clarified so that we can continue to remove the uncertainty for the sake of consumers.
The advertisement that appeared for the first time last Friday and ran over the weekend was intended to do just that. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and


my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health are using every available means at their disposal to clarify the matter. It is a far more technical and complex matter than many people perhaps appreciate. In many ways, it is a technical problem because it is a relatively new strain of salmonella and scientisits have no sure way of finding out about the strain in live hens. However, we are continuing to take every possible step to ensure that we reduce the number of outbreaks of this strain of salmonella.
I agree wholeheartedly with the chief medical officer that, until the number of such outbreaks begins to decline, we shall not return to 100 per cent. confidence in the egg market. That is why I know that the industry itself is most anxious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, to tackle the problem as well. Doubtless we will have other opportunities to debate this matter in future. I hope that I have answered all the questions that were raised. I reiterate that if there are any outstanding matters that I have not covered I shall be more than pleased to try to clarify them tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Football Matches (Public Order)

Mr. Allen McKay: There is no issue between us in the House that, wherever and whenever hooliganism occurs, it must be dealt with. There is no doubt also that the reports show that the problem is growing in this country and elsewhere.
Hooliganism is not confined to any social group or to a particular area. Hooliganism is not only a problem for football, it is a problem for society. Reports in many newspapers clearly show the extent of the problem. There are headlines and reports such as:
Seventy arrested as drunks clash with police in rural areas. Fifteen youths were questioned on Saturday … at Shrewsbury. More than 40 people were arrested in York after attacks on police as youths spilled out of public houses …
The first outbreak of trouble came at a country and western evening attended by 600 middle-aged enthusiasts …
More than 1,000 police officers have been rendered unfit for service this year as a result of assaults in English and Welsh rural areas.
In Swindon, Bracknell, Woking, Bedhampton, Caterham, Bournemouth, Llanelli, Oxford and throughout the length and breadth of the country there are problems with vandalism and hooliganism.
This problem does not simply occur in sport and at football matches. In 1980 there was one death and 1,700 arrests at horse-racing fixtures, including 600 during royal Ascot. In rowing 290 people were arrested during the Oxford and Cambridge boat race and 140 during the Henley regatta week. Two years ago there was violence at the Tory party conference and the chairman apologised to CND for the damage to its exhibition stand. Some young Tories were even banned from staying at a hotel because of an outbreak of bad behaviour.
In 1987 there were 141,000 arrests for violence against the person and there were 559,000 arrests for criminal damage. Between 1986 and 1987 arrests for violence against the person in counties that do not have a first or second division football club increased, in Surrey by 25 per cent., in Norfolk by 29 per cent., and in Dorset by 27 per cent. In counties with first or second division football clubs there was an increase, in Merseyside over that period of 4 per cent., in London of 11 per cent. and in the west midlands of 1 per cent.
Of the 3,700,000 reported crime in England and Wales in 1987, only 6,000 were in or around football grounds and they included payment dodgers, pickpockets, illegal parkers, illegal traders and drug arrests. Ostensibly it would appear that it is safer inside a football ground than outside one.
In 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1988 the Opposition offered the Government parliamentary time to legislate on football violence. The Government failed to respond. Instead they passed legislation giving the police powers to stop and search people and vehicles travelling to football matches and they banned all alcohol at matches.
The Government now propose introducing an identity card scheme, against the advice of senior police officers, the Police Federation, football legislators, supporters' clubs, civil libertarians and civil liberty groups. The Government must believe that the scheme will be seen as a form of decisive action—whether or not it works. I do not blame the Government for that, because given the uproar that followed the Turin, Heysel, and Leyton


incidents, they had to be seen doing something. However, they must reconsider whether the scheme they propose is the most effective.
The Government expect that, in time, the withdrawal of identity cards from the culprits will eliminate the problem, leaving football crowds free from violence, and parents and children free to enjoy the game in safety. It is an admirable aim, with which we all agree, but can it be achieved by the proposed scheme?
As a magistrate, I look to the scheme to provide something more than the power to fine offenders. Will it work, or will it mean taking unwarranted action against millions of football supporters, remembering that 99 per cent. of them do not indulge in violence?
This week's issue of the Police Federation magazine advises.
Think again, Mr. Moynihan. The Report of Sports Minister's Colin Moynihan's Working Party on a National Membership Scheme for Football has come in for almost universal condemnation. Sadly, the strictures are deserved, for this is an extraordinary mish mash of good intentions and half baked nostrums. If the Government insists on using its majority to steamroller this scheme through Parliament, the results could be disastrous.
The report continues by remarking that the scheme will not work:
When it breaks down, it will do so on match days and give rise to the threat of even worse disorder than it seeks to suppress.
Also highlighted is the likely reaction of a crowd of 50,000-plus supporters, such as that seen at Highbury earlier this month, which
if unable to gain admission because of delays at the turnstiles, does not have to guessed at … The conclusion is inescapable that it is the Department of the Environment, responding to prompting from the Prime Minister's Policy Unit, which was on the working party, which has pushed this through against the best professional advice.
That is the view of the Police Federation, whose officers will have to deal with the scheme's implementation.
As far as we can see, the identity system will comprise a central, computerised network of 92 linked terminals. An application for membership will be made on a form obtained at a post office, local shop or the club itself, and it must be submitted to the club of the applicant's choice together with two passport-style photographs. The application will be checked and entered on the central computer.
How will it be known at that stage that the information given on the form is correct? No one will know because at that point there will be no checking system. Subsequently, the applicant's identity card will be posted to him. Only at that stage is there a check—that the address given is valid. It will depend on the cost to the individual of that system as to how many supporters will be lost to the game.
What about the casual supporter who decides, "It's a fine day—I'll go to the match"? The Minister is reported as telling a group of Conservative Members that that problem will be overcome by allowing applicants to register as casual supporters on the morning of the match they wish to attend. If that is so, how will their applications be checked—given that, otherwise, a period of seven days is required for that process?
I do not believe that people will go down and register in the morning. They will simply not go to the match. It is fine for those who can get into the car and spend half an hour going to fetch an application form, but few people in

my constituency have cars, and problems with bus services mean they will not go into town twice—once to get the form and once to attend the match.
Under the scheme children must be accompanied by their parents. But hundreds of young football fans do not go to matches with their parents: they go together in groups—not necessarily school groups; they get together locally. At what age must they have an identity card? Will aged persons be exempt, and if so at what age?
What will happen on the day of the match? The spectator goes along to the ground; he puts his card into the machine; he is identified by the central computer; the turnstile is unlocked; the identity card is given to the gate man; the spectator is identified by his photograph, and he pays his money. All that takes a long time. Anyone who goes to football matches regularly has seen the thousands of people who go through the turnstiles in the last 15 or 20 minutes—sometimes the last 10 minutes—before a major match. It is unbelievable. I do not think that a computerised system will be able to take that in its stride and be able to register and check all those people and let them through.
What if the card is rejected? What about the argument that that will cause? What if someone is not identified with the card that he presents, or the computer goes on the blink? All the problems that we are trying to remove from the football ground will be transferred back to the local community. Many supporters will not put up with the hassle, and there will be a further loss of custom as a result.
A national opinion poll surveyed 947 people who went to football matches or said that they were interested in football. Asked how often they went to a league game nowadays nearly half the sample said never, 90 per cent. said once a month, 10 per cent. said every two or three months, 12 per cent. said only twice a season and 11 per cent. said that they went even less often than that. Of the 48 per cent. who never attended a league game nowadays over three quarters—79 per cent.—said that they had attended games in the past, while 20 per cent. of those interested in football had never attended a league game at all. Over half the respondents—56 per cent.—thought that a compulsory membership scheme would be a good idea, while 37 per cent. thought that it would be a bad idea. But of those who were closer to the game—those who actually went to football matches—54 per cent. thought that a compulsory scheme would be a bad idea. When they were asked whether they would apply for a membership card, 40 per cent. said no. That means that there will be a falling-off in attendance.
Even if the system works, delays at turnstiles will lead to public order problems outside the ground. Standard practice is to open the gates in the last 15 minutes of any match. What will happen if disgruntled spectators are still outside? Those inside will be trying to get out while those outside are trying to get in. Both activities conflict with the law and with the conditions laid down on the safety certificates.
At some grounds turnstiles lead directly on to a busy road, with no possibility of resiting them. Moreover, it is always difficult to recruit suitable staff, and it will be more difficult if the system is brought in. Small clubs like mine in Barnsley, playing good, attractive football, are trying to increase attendance. They will run into financial difficulties in funding the scheme.
I understand, according to a story in one of tomorrow's newspapers, that a firm has offered to fund the scheme,


free of charge. However, there will be a cost and it will have to be looked into. Any loss of revenue because of loss of custom and a decrease in membership will lead to great concern and difficulties. Some of the directors to whom I have spoken recently have said that the difficulties will be so great that clubs such as Barnsley will go out of business.
As they have experienced very little trouble for many years, we have to ask why they should have to introduce a membership scheme to prevent trouble that is not being caused. No two clubs are alike, so different measures have to be adopted for each club. The clubs, in co-operation with the Government, have installed closed-circuit TV; they have segregated the rival supporters; they have introduced family areas and voluntary membership schemes; they have adopted local plans that have been agreed with the police and the local authorities. Those measures have virtually eliminated all crowd disorder incidents. Those ideas can be built on, without the need to introduce an identity scheme. Cards do not catch, and never have caught, anyone.
As for Sheffield Wednesday's system—our nearest neighbour—all trains are met at the station and the football fans are escorted to the football ground. After the match they are escorted back to the trains. All coaches come off the motorway at junction 36, are put into convoys and escorted to the match. All alcohol is confiscated at those points. Sheffield Wednesday has had no trouble whatsoever for ages.
As a magistrate, I know that something is needed to deter football hooliganism. Fines do not deter. Why should we not use the magistrates' courts effectively? Why should they not be able to issue community orders each Saturday, or on each day that a match is played, for every offender? Millwall's idea is that, for every offender, the community order should state that work should be done at Millwall's football ground.
Why should we not expand the use of the probation service? The Government's booklet "Punishment, Custody and the Community" states that community service should be used and that the use of of the probation service should be extended, Why should not offenders be asked to report to the local police station on each day that a match is played? Why should investigations not be made at half time during matches to make sure that offenders are not at the match? Hooligans inside football grounds can be assumed to be hooligans outside football grounds. The use of the courts in that way would act as a deterrent.
The Police Federation said:
Mrs. Thatcher's insistence that football hooliganism must be conquered reflects the feelings of the whole law-abiding public. All the more reason why such an objective needs something far, far more feasible than this lamentable miscarriage of judgement.
That is why many people believe that the identity card scheme will not work.

Mr. Tony Baldry: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is shortly to unveil the Bill that will require football supporters to carry membership cards to gain admission to football matches, it is certain that in the coming weeks there will be a substantial volume of comment about the merits of the proposed legislation. Understandably, much of that comment will be on the

sports pages, and it will come from those who are directly involved with football, such as the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), who initiated this debate.
I want, however, to deal with this as someone who is not directly involved with football but who is concerned about public order and about the cost to the whole community of the need to have substantial numbers of police officers at football matches and who is concerned that Britain's name overseas should not be besmirched by being associated in people's minds with violence and hooliganism by Britons at football matches. This is a matter that concerns us all, not just those who are directly involved with football.
Who in Britain, in June 1985, could not have been ashamed and appalled by the scenes of violence at the European cup final in Brussels that resulted in 38 deaths and a much larger number of injuries? Who in Britain could not have felt a sense of outrage and shame that the behaviour of some of our citizens led to such a tragedy? Who could not have resolved that we should all do everything possible to make sure that such a disaster never happened again?
Undoubtedly matters have improved during the past three seasons, with restrictions on alcohol at football matches and full use being made of closed-circuit television, crowd segregation and firm and positive policing. A continuous and sensible package of measures has been taken of which the proposed legislation forms part. I suspect that the only reason why it has not been in place earlier is that the football clubs have not been prepared to produce their own voluntary scheme. But it is necessary to introduce legislation to further that package of measures, to make sure that all grounds are licensed, that responsibilities go with such licences and to introduce a national membership scheme. All those initiatives form part of an interlocking and inter-relating set of measures to tackle football hooliganism.
There is still a long way to go before football's good name is restored. Last season there were 6,147 arrests and 6,542 ejections from football league matches. There were also the recent appalling events at the European championships in Germany earlier this year. Those statistics translate into substantial amounts of police time, magistrates courts' time, Crown court time and therefore substantial sums of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money.
Let us not forget that it requires a sizeable police effort to police the matches and contain the risk of hooliganism. For example, Thames Valley police provides some 80 to 100 police at most football league matches in its area, and considerably more at some matches. The cost of such policing is about £7,500 per match for a four-hour period. On average, the clubs pay some £2,000 towards the cost, so that ratepayers and taxpayers foot the rest of the bill. Of course, police officers on duty at football matches are not available for duty elsewhere. If Oxford were playing at home, there could, and almost certainly would, be about 100 police officers in attendance at the match. In contrast, at the same time almost certainly fewer than 20 police officers would be available to police the whole of the Banbury area in north Oxfordshire. Oxford United football club has a good reputation and has taken every measure possible to reduce public disorder within its grounds. How much worse the situation would be at clubs which have a consistently bad reputation for public disorder.


Those manpower figures and costings clearly demonstrate that football hooliganism affects us all, not just those who attend football matches or live and work near football grounds, but the whole community. I welcome the promised Bill that will provide the framework for a national membership scheme designed to break the link between football and hooliganism. The prime purpose of the scheme is to keep troublemakers out of football grounds. Removing the football match as the focus for the activities of the hooligans will also act as a disincentive for them to travel and will help to break the link between violence and football.
It is said the scheme will simply move violence from inside to outside the grounds, but I disagree. My experience as a barrister tells me that those who are involved in football violence need the anonymity of the crowd and the presence of the crowd to behave as they do. They will act in groups in a crowd in ways in which they would not act as individuals in the street. Unable to get into football matches, the thugs will have no crowd in which to act.
The responsible football spectator has nothing to lose and everything to gain by the introduction of a national membership scheme. Concerns that have been raised are misplaced. I have no doubt that when the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone sees the full details of the scheme, he will find that many of his fears have been misplaced. The scheme will not interfere with civil liberties. No one has an absolute right to enter a football ground and clubs already refuse entry to unwanted spectators. However, hooliganism does infringe the civil liberties of the general public—those who live near football grounds and those who live away from the grounds but find that the number of police officers in their area has been cut because they are needed to police matches.
Improved technology means that those with membership cards will be able to enter football grounds speedily. Far from being a cost to clubs, I suspect that they will soon find that the membership scheme provides a positive cash flow. As a publisher with some experience of the commercial potential of membership lists, I know that there are enormous commercial opportunities in a membership list of millions. One company has already agreed to set up and run the scheme at no cost to clubs. I am sure that any competent club will be able to turn the scheme into a revenue-generating opportunity.
Radical change was needed if football was to survive as a spectator sport and if English clubs were once more to be acceptable abroad. My hon. Friend the Minister is introducing a sensible scheme as part of a series of measures in the interests of genuine football supporters and the community as a whole. I hope that the scheme will have widespread support in the country.

Mr. Tom Pendry: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) began by saying that he is not a football supporter. That was illustrated in his speech. I am sure that he knows a good deal about being a barrister and publisher but he knows nothing about football or the proposed Bill. Much of what he said related to Heysel and West Germany and the proposed Bill does not attempt to tackle those problems. The hon. Gentleman

received a brief from someone who is no friend of his. Even the Minister woke up when he heard some of the nonsense that was spoken.
The opposition to the proposed measure is gaining strength, not least among Conservative Members. This is an opportunity for us to discuss the measure and I am sure that we will not discuss it again. When the Bill goes to the other place it will be buried, and rightly so.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on raising the matter. He has done the House a service. Even at this late hour it is a pleasure to expose some of the myths about hooliganism that are attached to football. We are not talking about "football hooligans" but, as I have said, hooligans attached to football. My hon. Friend mentioned the survey in The Mail on Sunday. I will not go into further detail because he dealt with that adequately. He also mentioned the Police Federation's response to the proposed measure. The police will be at the sharp end of the legislation. The federation says that the scheme will not work. Anybody who looks at it in depth will realise that.
The football league's executive staff association, which has 440 members, is almost unanimous in its opposition to the proposal. It says that the proposed identity card scheme would not serve any useful purpose in preventing the spectator violence which is attached to football. Those experienced professionals feel that the scheme will lead to unaccompanied youngsters becoming the targets of violence, which is
a truly frightening prospect.
As chairman of the all-party football committees I have received many letters from clubs such as Ipswich Town, Chelsea, Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Stoke City, Sunderland, Exeter City and Wrexham. Conservative Members representing marginal seats should closely consider the proposed legislation, because a number of clubs will go the wall as a result of it, and as a result of that a number of Conservative Members will also go to the wall.
I shall refer particularly to Reading football club because the Minister for Sport, donning a Reading FC tie—I expect that he will use it on some future occasion—opened its membership scheme. Reading says that as a result of the proposed legislation
the Government has set us back five years.
It has paid about £100,000 to introduce the voluntary membership scheme that the Minister opened. That is not an isolated case, and many clubs throughout the country will find it difficult to exist as a result of the proposed legislation.
I know that the Minister is under much pressure, from the kind of letters that I and other hon. Members have been receiving. Conservative Back Benchers are pressing for concessions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said that some have been made, but they are insufficient and the wrong approach is being taken.
The Minister's justification for action—violent hooliganism associated with football—does not bear close scrutiny. An answer that I received from the Home Office dated 7 November said that 3·9 per cent. of adults in Britain were arrested last year throughout the country compared with 0·03 per cent. at football matches.
The hon. Member for Banbury contradicted himself. It is true that the hooligan wants to be associated with the crowd, but the hon. Gentleman rightly said that because of


closed-circuit television and segregation the hooligan has been thrown out of football grounds and back into society. Arrests at football grounds increased last season by 11 per cent., but that increase has been attributed to police use of closed-circuit television to catch offenders who previously went free.
The debate concerns public order, and last year violent assaults increased by 13 per cent.—rather more than the increase in football-related arrests. Given that most football arrests are not for violent crime, we argue that the problem is one for the wider community. At the recent Liverpool-Everton match, there were no arrests inside the ground and three outside it, two of which were for theft from cars while one was for ticket touting. Eight of the arrests at White Hart Lane before the Spurs-Millwall match were because of a clamp-down on ticket touts. When there have been problems, such as at Stockport county versus Burnley this season, football has acted swiftly, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) will testify. Burnley uses closed-circuit television camera evidence to ban offenders for life.
The problem of violence in society is the true problem, which identity cards cannot solve. Luton Town has been successful, by its own terms, in banning away supporters from Kenilworth road, but figures for violent offences in the Luton area prove that the problem has not been destroyed but displaced. In Britain, violent offences increased by 12 per cent. in 1987 compared with the previous year. In Bedfordshire police division C, which covers Luton, the increase was 14 per cent. The contrast is stronger when one compares Luton with the rest of Bedfordshire, where the increase was less than the national average. Violence has become not better but worse since identity cards were introduced at Kenilworth road.
When the police are given effective resources and support, they can tackle hooliganism. It was reassuring to see the ringleaders at Wolverhampton convicted last week and sent to goal. That was positive action by the police and the club. The police who are involved in the dangerous undercover work that leads to such convictions know full well that identity cards are irrelevant. This week, a sergeant who had to retain some secrecy on the point about gangs at Arsenal revealed that
The football match was never the focus of the aggression. Once the match was over, opposition fans would be trailed or supporters in the match elsewhere in London would be ambushed at Euston. They were sophisticated criminals who were careful to avoid incidents inside the grounds because they knew they would be detected at Highbury. Identity cards would do nothing to defeat the problems of society and the cards would be an additional target for theft.
The Minister for Sport wants to make cosy comparisons between football and other sports, because he believes that families need only to return to football to solve many problems. Football has never been a family sport. It has always been a male-dominated sport. The Government refer to the American game of football as though it were some panacea. Before this season's Cincinnati v. Cleveland game, the senior police officer on duty said that it would be a normal match. He expected more than 100 arrests, lots of fights and disorderly behaviour because of intoxication. Not a single match here this season has caused anything like those problems. The

Minister should look less towards the foreign situation and more towards the actions of his own Government with regard to the impact of identification cards on attendances.
A comparison with the arts is realistic, given the introduction of charges for entry to museums. As with football, they create an additional barrier between the public and, in this case, the exhibition of historic treasures. Admissions to the national maritime museum fell by 36 per cent. in the first year following the introduction of charges. At the natural history museum, they fell by 40 per cent., and the science museum has just budgeted for a similar 40 per cent. loss. A 40 per cent. drop would be the death knell for most football clubs.
The Minister for Sport did not discuss the problem with football supporters' clubs when the working party was set up. Rather belatedly, the other day, he lectured them; he did not listen to them. Had he listened to real football supporters, he would have come to quite a different conclusion.
I shall conclude my remarks by quoting a gentleman who, I am sure, is no supporter of the Labour party. He is from Guildford in Surrey. He wrote:
My objections are on grounds of gross infringement of my freedom of choice, what to do with my leisure time on a Saturday afternoon. I happen to be chairman of the local British Legion branch here in Surrey. I was at the Festival of Remembrance at the Albert hall. And as the poppy petals fluttered down I asked myself how many of the 300,000 men who died or were wounded (in Flanders alone; enough men to fill Wembley stadium three times over) would have dreamed that they were fighting and dying for a country which, by the year 1988, would be making such a demand of its 'free' citizens
He went on to say:
aided and abetted by a Prime Minister in her third term whose Falkland virtues of steadfastness and determination are now being turned against innocent citizens in her own country.
As hon. Members can imagine, that person is hardly a supporter of the Labour party. He and many others like him are turning against the Government's proposed legislation, because it will do nothing to assist our national game. It will drive many clubs out of business. At the end of the day, the Minister for Sport will be known as the Minister who killed our national game. The Government will be linked with him in that act.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The speech of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) clearly showed why the Government will be getting it wrong if they proceed along the lines suggested in the Queen's Speech and bring in a Bill to introduce identity cards for football matches. He said that he was no supporter of football. He also failed to recognise the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) that this is not a football problem. We must get out of the habit of referring to it as such. The media have given that impression and regrettably the Prime Minister and others in the House have allowed it to be referred to as a football problem.
There is hooliganism and violence on the Costa Brava, on ferries, planes, trains and the Underground, in town centres and shopping precincts and in many other places. If we keep the matter in perspective—as we should for football matches—we find that it is a small percentage of the population who commit acts of violence and hooliganism. Opposition Members would not for one


moment condone acts of hooliganism, violence or vandalism. We should like such acts, wherever they are committed, to be banned and kept out the way. We would merely say that this is not a football problem.
I have been a Burnley supporter ever since the club won promotion to the first division in the first season after the war and ever since it got to Wembley. I want to give as examples two games which, for different reasons, could not have attracted such large crowds had an identity card scheme been in operation. The first game was at the end of the 1986–87 season. Burnley had to win the last game of the season to remain a member of the football league, of which it was one of the original 12 members when it was formed 100 years ago. Burnley had had a disastrous season in the fourth division with gates nose-diving because of bad results. It also had to depend on one or two other clubs losing that day if it was to survive. Burnley's gates had dropped to below 3,000 that season, yet on that day 18,000 people turned up at Turf Moor to will the team to win the game. That is what football is about, and the crowd played just as important a part as the team in Burnley's victory that day and in the club's survival.
On 29 May this year—the very last game of the football season—instead of fighting for survival, Burnley played Wolverhampton Wanderers in the final of the Sherpa Van competition at Wembley. There was a gate of 81,000 people, who came to see two fourth division clubs—of former first-division glory—fighting for the trophy. Wolves won it, 81,000 people turned up but there was not a single incident or problem. Such an attendance would not have been possible under the new regulations. We need to ensure that people can go to football matches because I believe that the casual supporter may become a regular supporter when a team is doing well. This coming weekend, many people will have their parents staying with them. If the scheme were in place, people would not be able to take their father to a football match on Boxing day—something that is part of Christmas for many people. Do we really want to prevent them from doing that?
The scheme will also create problems at the gate. Most football crowds arrive in the 10 or 15 minutes before a game. It is no good saying that the cards will take a fraction of a second to process or wipe through; those who have used credit cards and phone cards know that they do not always function. However good the computer system is, there will be failures and with thousands of people using the cards just before 3 o'clock on a Saturday, there will be chaos if the computer cannot cope. Initially, nobody with a membership card will be banned because they will not get a card if they are banned. Burnley football club has made it clear that if anyone commits violence at any of its games, whether at home or away, it will ban them for life from all Burnley games.
The legislation will cause problems. On television the Minister said that if there was a problem, the person will go through the turnstile and be stopped by stewards and police. That is based on the assumption that only the odd one will cause a problem. What will happen if at every turnstile a person is rejected and has to be challenged by stewards and the police? That will cause friction outside and will not stop problems in the grounds.
Such people are not football fans. The people who cause the problems do not watch the football match because they are not interested in it. Of course we do not want them there, but they will find a way of getting a card and they will get in. We shall have to have a skillful system

that can check photographs Ito see whether a person has somebody else's card. The grounds will not be able to cope with a large crowd going through the turnstiles in the few minutes before the game starts.
The scheme will cause problems to many third and fourth division clubs, and even first and second division clubs will be affected. This year Burnley's gates are averaging just over 8,000. Luton, which is cited as an example of how such schemes work, has had a successful season. It reached Wembley three times, won the Littlewoods cup and its average gate was only just over 8,000. That is not enough to sustain a football club.
The legislation will sound the death knell of many clubs. I strongly believe that we want to preserve a league of 92 clubs which can move up and down the league and in which supporters can take an interest. It is regrettable that the scheme will be forced through by hon. Members who do not support football and who are encouraged by the Prime Minister, who is not a fan, but unfortunately happens to be the president of Blackburn Rovers, who are Burnley's greatest rivals. I hope that Blackburn puts pressure on the Prime Minister to think again and that the Minister will make it clear that the Government will rethink this nonsensical proposal.

Mr. Alan Meale: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) for expressing anxieties about football in this debate, having been successful in the ballot. I, too, wish to speak against a compulsory identity card system for football supporters. I oppose it for many reasons, which I shall go into, but mainly because the introduction of such a mandatory scheme has nothing to do with sport. It is a direct interference in sport. The Government seek to impose a scheme which is an insult to the majority of football supporters, to 91 of the 92 league clubs and to the majority of those involved in football at all levels.
Hon. Members on both sides may ask why I believe that so firmly. It stems from my arm belief that the idea is totalitarian as it does not seek to solve any of the problems of violence in our society or accept that the Government's economic policies have widened divisions within society, which have an effect on football. Social divisions are so sharp that they affect detrimentally inner-city communities, the young and the old, the employed and the unemployed and those in the north and the south. These measures are little more than a bullish public relations exercise by a Government with virtually no personal knowledge or experience of the game. The main purpose is to divert public opinion away from some of the major problems facing people in our society, primarily caused by Government policies.
It is true that British football has a hooliganism problem, but it is not a new problem. For instance, the Leicester Daily Mercury reported disgraceful scenes at a Burnley v Blackburn Rovers match. It stated:
the referee was mobbed at the close, the official had to be protected by the Committee and so demonstrative were the spectators that the police could not clear the field. He had to take refuge under the grandstand and subsequently in a neighbouring house. The police force was increased and eventually the referee was hurried into a cab and driven away by a howing stone-throwing mob.
That happened in 1890. Examples of hooliganism can be found throughout the 20th century.
According to another report:


In 1909, at Hampden Park some 6,000 spectators pulled up goalposts, fences and pay-boxes, set fire to them and danced round them in the middle of the pitch. Police, firemen and ambulancemen were stoned, fire-engines damaged and horses slashed. Police, after throwing the stones back at the rioters, finally cleared the ground at 7 o'clock at a cost of 54 constables injured and the destruction of virtually every street around Hampden. Sixty other people were also injured.
Another report states:
Neither of the New Year's Day matches at Parkhead in 1898 or Ibrox in 1905, between Rangers and Celtic, were finished because of pitch invasions, There were also serious outbreaks of disorder in Scottish fotball in 1941, 1949, 1953, 1955, 1957 and 1958 and on into the 1960s. The disorder in these cases consisted of fighting, bottle-throwing and pitch invasions in addition to ritual chanting, obscenities and jeering. In fact The Glasgow Herald wrote in 1952: 'This hooliganism on the sports field cannot be allowed to go on. The sport of football must be cleared up'.
It is, therefore, not a new problem and it does no good to the sport for the Government—especially the Minister responsible for sport—to keep harping on publicly about it. In the same way as I condemn the television companies and the rest of the media for some of the ways that they have reported such events, especially in the recent past, the Government cannot be excused for their approach to the problem, which has done little more than highlight the active hooligans in their behaviour.
The 1986 Popplewell inquiry into crowd safety and control of sports grounds said it all when it said:
There are three popular fallacies about hooliganism. Firstly, that it is something comparatively new, secondly, that it is only found at soccer matches and thirdly, that it is an English disease.
Anyone viewing some of the Italian crowd at the Heysel stadium disaster, subsequent behaviour at Windsor park races or, indeed, for that matter Henley boating regatta last year, will understand what I mean.
We must also accept that violence at football matches is not at the behest of the majority of decent loyal supporters. Everyone inside and outside of the game must take a share of the blame—the Government, perhaps, for their economic policies or the present, and past Governments for their willingness to bask in the glory of individual success in sport, or to scream at its demise after tragic or wrongful events. The blame must be shared inside the game. Professor John Hargreaves aptly described the situation in his book "Sport Culture", when he said:
Professional fouls, rows between players and officials, violence around football, power struggles and financial scandals in the board rooms, revelations about breaches of amateur status, the growing problem of drugs used in sports, the spatial representations of class divisions in seating arrangements at football grounds, executive boxes and seating accommodation in the stands versus the uncovered caged terrorists at the ends.
All those factors and others add to the problems of violence in sport, especially in football. The only two significant trends in football spectating in recent years have been declining audiences and the worsening ground behaviour.
Another reason for the problems might be the current state of British soccer, which might be as much to blame for the nonsense that occurs. Perhaps the Minister with responsibility for sport should pay a little attention to how our international squads do in various competitions. If he did we might not have some of the outrageous scenes that we have witnessed on the continent.
There can be no doubt that a problem exists, but everyone who cares about soccer wants to solve it. I have yet to speak to anyone connected with the sport, however, apart from those involved with Luton Town football club and the chief constable of Greater Manchester, who favour the Government's current solution. John Stalker, the former deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester who now advises Millwall on security matters has said: "the harder and heavier the policing, the more they want to pit themselves against it. Identity cards are no solution. In fact in big cities and other places where groups of fans could come across each other outside the ground, it is a positively dangerous idea."

Mr. Pendry: I have followed what my hon. Friend has said carefully and he has been talking a great deal of sense. Does my hon. Friend consider that it is somewhat odd that he is making his speech but that the Minister responsible for sport is not present to listen to it? The Minister is responsible for the proposed legislation, but had he listened to my hon. Friend and others he might not have introduced it in the first place.

Mr. Meale: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I should remind the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) that debates of this nature should not relate to legislation.

Mr. Meale: I note your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Every football league club chairman to whom I have spoken opposes the idea of identity cards. They all consider it to be absolute stupidity. Every player dreads it as it could result in the shortening of their already limited playing careers because of club closures or restrictions on club finances to pay wages. Every police chief to whom I have spoken—apart from the chief constable of Greater Manchester—who is concerned with providing police cover for matches believe that the proposal is totally unworkable. Every football supporter I have met has decribed the measure as a hooligans' charter and the fulfilment of the hooligan purpose of causing havoc on Saturday afternoons.
I urge the Minister with responsibility for sport to start again in his search for a solution. If the Minister will do nothing else, he should come to my club, Mansfield Town. It is a third division club and it it not one of the biggest in Britain, nor does it have the great history of Burnley FC in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister of Burnley (Mr. Pike) who spoke eloquently about the history of football.
In recent times, Mansfield Town has striven to beat hooliganism in a positive way. It has done so by introducing a voluntary membership scheme; by working with youngsters in the community; by promoting a sound youth policy in the club. It has also provided a family stand and enclosure that has been sponsored by the local newspaper The Chad and it offers cut-price tickets to families. It has created and promoted excellent liaison between the police authority, the club and its supporters. It has bothered to get the help of the Football Trust and the Football Ground Improvements Trust to better facilities and install closed circuit television in the Fieldmill ground.
It is no good the Minister saying that clubs such as Mansfield will not have to face any financial loss. I have to


admit that if he gave such a guarantee tonight I should be more than happy to accept it. Such a promise would help. Clubs like Mansfield Town cannot afford to lose supporters because of the inconvenience that such a measure would cause. A company has been reported today as being willing to step in with £34 million—perhaps the Minister will say something about that tonight. I understand that the company in question is the credit card firm American Express. I hope that the Minister will tell his hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport that that will not do for Mansfield. It is just no good. We want adequate support from the community, with supporters paying for their club to continue.
The proposal is incredibly unfair. As an example of that I quote a press release sent to hon. Members from the Department of the Environment by the Minister responsible for sport on 9 November 1988. The Minister hits the nail on the head. He said of the investigation:
Its objectives were to review the main principles of the scheme and to identify appropriate technology to implement it.
So the idea was not to discover whether the scheme was a good proposal—it was merely to implement it.
Paragraph 4 of the same letter reads:
The link between hooliganism and football is still there … The central premise of the scheme is that no-one will be able to go to a match without a valid membership card.
That is untrue; since the scheme was introduced, the Minister has made it plain that there will be exemptions for VIPs visiting football clubs around the country. But what is good enough for VIPs should, in my opinion, be good enough for the ordinary football supporter who goes to football matches every week—rain, snow or hail.
I request the Minister once again to ask the Minister responsible for sport to return to all who are involved in football and other sports—the police, the players the local authorities and the football supporters—and to stop this stupid Bill, so that we can find a more workable and proper solution to the problem. If he will not do that, I ask him at least to guarantee that second, third and fourth division clubs will face no financial loss over the coming years as a result of the scheme. Only in that way will the 91 league clubs who are against the legislation have a future.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) who said that he had been watching league football since the war, I reflected that I, too, had been watching if for 42 years. I tried to remember how many incidents of violence —as opposed to witnessing arrests from a distance—I had seen in that time. I can think of only three. One involved some Burnley supporters at Chesterfield, who were swinging on the barrier dressed as Red Indians. I doubt whether that was an offence that warranted arrest.
I once saw people fighting in the stand at a Sheffield Wednesday v Liverpool match. I was on the Kop, where I heard people saying that an upper-class punch-up was taking place.
The only other incident I saw which was anything like those related by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) occurred at a non-league match at which Easington played Sunderland A. The Easington crowd refused to let the referee off the pitch at the end and chased him around throwing mud at him. Sunderland were

winning 1-0 at half time, but Easington won the match 2-1. These were the only violent incidents I have observed in a great deal of time spent watching football.
Several hon. Members have tabled questions about football, and I refer to three—two from the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and one from me. On 9 November at column 186, the hon. Member for Hendon, South received a written answer from the Minister for Sport giving details for the 1987–88 season of matches played and total arrests by division. In the first division there were 5·5 arrests per game; in the second, 4·4; in the third, 1·7; and in the forth, 1·9. That is hardly a massive problem that requires legislation to resolve it as opposed to present measures, which include television surveillance. There were 6,147 arrests in total. It sounds a great deal—it is about the average crowd at a Burnley football match. But Burnley play 23 home league games in a season, and there are 92 league clubs. If one relates the number of arrests to the total attendances, it becomes much more insignificant. It is no more significant than the number of cases of salmonella poisoning caused by eggs. Although there is a problem, we do not need measures that will frighten people and destroy football.
The second answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South appears at column 628 of Hansard on 14 December and states that the statistics came from
the Association of Chief Police Officers which collates statistics on arrests and ejections from football liaison officers at police forces throughout the country."—[Official Report, 14 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 628.]
If such statistics are readily available to the Department of the Environment, it is surprising that it took the Department so long to answer my question, which was tabled on 1 December. I did not receive an answer until 19 December, and then only after raising the matter in the House at business questions.
My question asked whether the Minister would list English league football clubs, together with the number of matches played at their grounds, the total season's attendance, the total arrests in association with such matches, the average attendance per match, the average number of arrests per match and the arrests as a proportion of attendance. I also asked him to make a statement about the number of charges and convictions that have arisen from such arrests. Eventually, I received an answer stating:
Comparable figures are not available for charges nor for convictions arising from arrests.
It is surprising that such information is not also supplied by football liaison officers. It is obvious that the number of convictions does not match the number of arrests.
The answer goes on to say, in a defensive way, that the statistics do not tell the whole story and that other matters should be mentioned. It says:
Neither the ejections nor arrests reflect the substantially greater number of incidents of violence, hooliganism and vandalism at football league grounds. Furthermore, the police view remains that many matches provide the focus for aggressive and provocative behaviour, with violence never far below the surface.
We are no longer talking about real violence, but about metaphysical violence. Dark looks and dirty thoughts must be taken into account when examining the statistics. That has to be done because the statistics are so inadequate. Over 75 per cent. of the 92 league clubs have records of fewer than five arrests per match. The subsequent charges will be considerably fewer than that. Only Scarborough and Exeter have arrest rates of over one


per thousand for last season. Scarborough was a new club in the fourth division and many of those arrests took place in the first two games that the team played.
The following teams have only one arrest per 10,000 spectators: Charlton, Norwich, Spurs, Watford, Manchester City, Oldham, Plymouth, Reading, Bury, Northampton, Preston, Wigan, Darlington, Leyton and Swansea. However, half of those clubs will be threatened by any move to introduce identity cards. The other week my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and I went to the Chesterfield-Mansfield game. Those two clubs have fewer than one arrest per match and are the type of teams that will be vulnerable following the change. Why should the overwhelming majority of third and fourth division clubs face bankruptcy when they have fewer than two arrests per match? Even 90 per cent. of first and second division clubs, where there is far more support, have fewer than 10 arrests per match.
Like the vast majority of football fans, I deplore violence at grounds and am aware of the many measures that have been introduced to enable the police to handle the situation more readily. The notion put forward by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that police will no longer be required when plastic cards are introduced is incredible. The Minister is, however, blowing the whole matter up out of proportion as there are probably far more arrests outside nightclubs on a Saturday night than there are in football grounds.
I have been watching league football matches for 42 years. The first match that I saw was Sunderland against Grimsby in the first division. Sunderland had two arrests per 10,000 spectators last season and Grimsby nine arrests per 10,000 spectators. I have visited 30 of the 92 league grounds and would now call myself a casual supporter, but along with many others, I would stop going to matches. I shall not be going into any executive boxes to avoid providing an identity card and I would object to having to carry a passbook into the ground. Many other people will share that feeling. The statistics given in the answer that I have quoted show that the proposal is nonsense.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on making sure that we had this debate. I only wish that he could have used his considerable influence to have arranged it earlier in the day. However, we have had an interesting debate. The House agrees that no one likes violence. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) reaffirm that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone made a number of comments about the Police Federation's belief that the scheme will not work. He referred to many of the practical problems of crowds at turnstiles, what will happen if the photograph on the card does not correspond with the face and who will deal with such problems—the stewards or the police. Those are matters of concern for the police and certainly for my excellent club, Hull City, as I have discovered from my discussions with police officers and directors of the club.

The debate is not about the report on identity cards, as you Madam Deputy Speaker said earlier. We are debating the broader issue of public order and that is why the home affairs spokesmen are present tonight on the Front Benches.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is still in the Chamber. I do not like to attack hon. Members, but I was dismayed by the hon. Gentleman's speech. He spoke with great sincerity and his logic was impeccable; the lawyer's mind was evident. However, I found his remarks about the cost of policing quite staggering. He said that most of the cost is covered by ratepayers and not by the clubs. As the core of this debate is about public order and the Government's failure to get to grips with law and order, according to the logic used by the hon. Member for Banbury, one could argue that central Government should be paying the costs of policing instead of the ratepayers or the clubs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) spoke with great authority as he is the chairman of the all-party football committee. We all listened with profound interest to what he said and in particular to his comment that possibly many clubs will go into liquidation and will have to close because of the impact that the scheme will have on gates. Many clubs are on the margin. If gates are reduced by 10, 15 or 20 per cent., many clubs will fail. That would be very sad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde put his finger on the central issue. He referred to the national situation with regard to violent crime. The Government have failed miserably, and, although Ministers talk about combating crime, it is obvious from the level of violence that the Government are failing dismally. This debate is not about football. It is about violent crime in this country. The idea of dealing with the problem by playing around with identity cards is quite absurd.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) raised a very interesting point. He explained that, because the Government are failing in their policy of law and order to combat crime, the Prime Minister is involved on a steering committee to draw up proposals on identity cards. It is remarkable that the Prime Minister should be involved in such a matter, but that shows that the issue is central. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield was right to claim that the cards are a diversion. The Government's law and order policy is failing and therefore they are using footbal as a scapegoat.
The conclusion that we can draw from today's debate is that unquestionably there is a lack of confidence in the Government's proposed measures to deal with public order and football. The Police Federation, the supporters, club directors and others lack confidence in the scheme and if it goes ahead it will destroy a considerable part of the game for reasons that are the responsibility not of clubs, but of the Government who are trying to get their national policy on law and order right.
This is a sad day for football. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) adequately and eloquently emphasised that the problem exists in Spain, on the street, and even at Henley regatta. Even the Conservative party conference has been cited. The hon. Member for Banbury laughs, and I can understand why he does, but it is a serious matter that there was violence at the Conservative party conference; it is not just a matter of football violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire,


North-East spoke of there being more violence outside certain night clubs than there is at football grounds. The statistics prove him to be right. Why is so much emphasis being placed on football when the national crime aggregate exceeds that of football violence many times over? The reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield suggests, is that it creates a diversion.
Although we are not here dealing with Government business, clearly there is a difference of opinion between the Conservative and Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Banbury spoke of trying to break the link between football and violence but I am convinced that attempting to do so with an identity scheme of the kind proposed is fallacious. I may add, without wishing in any way to be partisan, that until the Government get to grips with law and order generally, the problems within our football stadia and elsewhere will continue.
This debate has been interesting and has put the arguments on the table. The Government clearly should get off the back of football and instead get to grips with the problem of violent crime. The Government's law and order policies are failing the country, and for them to use football in the way that they are only damages the game. It is a game of which we are proud. It is our national sport. We on the Opposition Benches stick by our national sport, and we shall back it. Why do not the Government back football by getting off its back and tackling high crime levels? When they do that, we shall be on the way to improving the situation at our football grounds.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Perhaps it is fortunate that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) began his speech at 4.42 am, because had he made it at a more respectable time, there would have been more right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber to laugh at him. In truth, his speech was complacent, foolish, off the mark, and trivial.
It was trivial because the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to play down the level of football violence; because he tried to dissociate football from violence, which is not the correct thing to do; and because he failed to appreciate any of the substantial measures taken by the Government, in terms both of national law and order policies and, in particular, of those to be adopted at sports grounds.
Having listened to the debate for nearly one and one half hours, I may say that the only speaker who made any sense was my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). The Opposition's failure to appreciate the depth of public anxiety is disgraceful. Their failure to recognise the clubs' inability to solve their own problems is regrettable, as is their failure to recognise the burdens imposed upon the police. I was struck most of all by the Opposition's wholly unconstructive and complacent attitude to the problems in question.
That cannot be said of the Government, who have already introduced a range of measures. It was clear to anyone who listened to Opposition Members' speeches as carefully as I did that, although it was not expressly stated, they accepted by implication that a number of measures promoted by the Government had been profoundly helpful. It might have been a good idea for them to state that in plain terms, for it would have added a certain credibility to the otherwise incredible.
Let me remind the House of some of the Government's measures. We begin with the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985, which established firm controls on the sale and possession of alcohol at grounds and on football special coaches and trains. I remember that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and I had an interesting debate about three years ago. There was an unholy alliance between us. I disliked the way in which the measure was carried through late at night and so did he, although my recollection is that he opposed most of its provisions. The difference between us is that I recognised that the Bill was a good thing, and I am delighted to say so. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman acknowledging that.

Mr. Pendry: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way.
We must recognise that that legislation was extremely helpful, as was the Public Order Act 1986, which has also had certain important consequences for football. It provided new offences of disorderly conduct and possession of fireworks or smoke bombs at matches, and provided the courts with the power to make exclusion orders prohibiting attendance at certain matches by convicted football hooligans. Exclusion orders have been a useful addition, but they are of only limited effectiveness in enforcing someone's exclusion.
Those two important pieces of legislation were carried through by the Government in the face of considerable opposition from the Labour Benches. We all now recognise that they have made a great difference to the effort to reduce violence at football matches. I have a shrewd suspicion that our membership schemes will have the same result. Labour Members will bang away in their normal boring and unconstructive way about how hopeless and useless such measures are, and in about three years' time, with long faces and a considerable lack of self-regard, they will have to admit that our legislation has been rather helpful and say that they are sorry that they said such beastly things about it.
We have also encouraged the police by improving the exchange of information between forces in the planning of policing of matches. Liaison between the police and football authorities has also been improved, and the introduction of closed-circuit television has been of great value.
Inevitably much of our debate has centred on the football membership scheme. The working party's report has recommended the introduction of a national membership scheme which will permit the exclusion from football grounds of known trouble-makers. Let us reflect for a moment on what is involved. The requirement to obtain a membership card is no doubt a slight inconvenience, although I think that the objections to it have been grossly exaggerated, but it strikes me that no Opposition Member has grasped or appreciated the enormous value that football clubs can obtain from such a scheme. Let us start with the obvious one: if we are able by this method to exclude known trouble-makers from the grounds—which is what I think will happen—the grounds will become infinitely more attractive to ordinary people, who will over a period of time attend in ever-increasing numbers.
I am amazed by the Opposition's unconstructive approach to these matters. For the first time ever clubs will


have a comprehensive list of their members for whom they will be able to provide far more facilities than ever before.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West is babbling on but he is incapable of realising that the Government are offering to the football industry a unique opportunity not just to attract more and different people to their grounds but to provide facilities that they have never previously contemplated. An orderly environment, the possession of membership lists and the certainty and confidence that that will give to their members is a new beginning for football—

In accordance with MR SPEAKER'S Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

5 am

Mr. Ray Whitney: I am very grateful to have this opportunity to raise a subject that is crucial to this country and to western Europe as a whole—the future of the European Community. Europe has embarked upon a great enterprise. We embarked upon it somewhat belatedly. In recent years, however, we have made an important contribution to it. Our future is entirely bound up with that great enterprise.
I am, however, concerned about the general management and co-ordination of Her Majesty's Government's policy for the development of the European Community. My concern is encapsulated in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Bruges on 20 September. I do not quarrel with the major points that my right hon. Friend made, but I am concerned about the impact of her speech.
My right hon. Friend's speech contained five principles. Her first principle was willing and active co-operation between independent sovereign states. Who could quarrel with that? Few of us wish to see the creation of a federal state of Europe. We want to maintain our sovereign, independent states. However, we must surely wish to emphasise the need for active co-operation.
My right hon. Friend's second principle—she referred to it as the guiding principle—was that Community policies must tackle the problems in a practical way. I can only say amen to that.
My right hon. Friend's third principle was that Community policies should encourage enterprise. This country's experience during the last 10 years demonstrates that that approach generates wealth and promotes the wellbeing of our people. We must therefore continue to promote, by means of the European Community, policies that foster enterprise.
My right hon. Friend's fourth principle was that Europe should not adopt a protectionist policy. There has been growing concern in the rest of the world about the development of a fortress Europe. I am glad that the recent Rhodes comuniqué suggested that those concerns are fully appreciated by all the member countries of the EEC. We are therefore on the way to avoiding the threat to world trade that a fortress Europe policy would pose.
My right hon. Friend's fifth principle was that Europe must continue to maintain a sure defence through the mechanism of NATO. At a time when we must take very careful account of the pressures that are generated in international politics by the developments in the Soviet Union, that must be right. We all share the great desire for the words of President Gorbachev to be translated into action and reality. Until that is done, the majority of British people well understand the importance of maintaining a sure defence, and that can be achieved only through NATO.
I have no quarrels with the five principles enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Bruges. However, I certainly have a strong quarrel with the effect and the impact of that speech and subsequent speeches and actions by Her Majesty's Government in regard to our co-operation with the European Community.
There is no doubt that the Bruges speech was very popular in Britain. That is not entirely a matter for congratulation among my right hon. and hon. Friends.


Sadly, even today, what I would call an Uncle Matthew spirit remains in the British populace. The House will recall in the novels of Nancy Mitford a splendid character called Uncle Matthew who spent a great deal of his time chanting that "wogs begin at Calais".
It is sad and regrettable that, despite the internationalisation that has taken place in the past two or three decades, that sentiment is still all too strong among the electorate in Britain. While there is a fundamental understanding of the need for international co-operation, and, as has been demonstrated on a number of occasions, a fundamental appreciation that we belong to Europe and must continue to co-operate with western Europe, just below the surface remains the Uncle Matthew tendency. There is no doubt that the impact of the Bruges speech was to appeal to the Uncle Matthew vote in Britain.
It should have given a lead to the nation and a signal to our European partners that we are determined to make a pre-eminent contribution to the development of the European Community, in particular to the moves which were required to achieve the objectives for 1992. Sadly, the impact and impression, as opposed to the content of the Bruges speech, encouraged those who have never accepted membership of the European Community. Although the overwhelming majority in Britain recognise that our future must lie in a close relationship with Europe while retaining our sovereignty, that small minority has consistently rejected that democratic decision. That anti-European element was given a great boost by the impact of the Bruges speech. We have seen it in the House.
The Bruges speech also dismayed our friends in the European Community, those whose general approach to the affairs of the European Community, and whose objectives, are virtually identical to ours. That does not apply to every member of the Community. That would be impossible to achieve. It would not be sensible to expect it in a Community of 12 nations, perhaps three of which have notionally Socialist Governments, although the term "Socialism" is arguable and has a variety of meanings in different countries. In general, our friends among our Community partners were seriously discomforted by the impact of the Bruges speech and the attitudes which it revealed. It makes it more difficult for them to co-operate with us item by item in the various issues and debates on which we need their support.
Another effect of the new attitude of challenge and, one might say, agnosticism, to some aspects of the move towards closer co-operation with our European partners has been the confusion of British business. I pay tribute to the achievements of the Department of Trade and Industry over the past 12 months in alerting British industry to the demands, opportunities and challenges of 1992. I am advised that our European Community partners regard our achievements as a model of how it should be done. We used to spend our time denigrating ourselves—we still have traces of that tendency—and believing that other countries were ahead of us and doing things better. I am delighted to say that in developing awareness of the significance of 1992, other European countries have recognised the British Government's achievements, particularly the Department of Trade and Industry and that has brought other Europeans to Britain to learn how it should be done.
It is regrettable that British industry is confused. I have experience of that over a wide range of contacts throughout British industry. One Government

Department is committed and enthusiastic about the principle of developing the single market and our European contacts, but significantly different noises are emerging from No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street. It is not surprising that that has led to the impression of incoherence in Government policy, which is damaging to United Kingdom interests.

Mr. George Robertson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Whitney: It is always embarrassing for me to find support from the Labour party. Its attitude to Europe does not bear a moment's consideration, as it is confused and weak, so it is all the more regrettable that my party appears to be falling into some of the traps in which the Labour party has been wallowing for many years and from which it shows no sign of escaping.
I am far from advocating total acceptance of everything that comes from Brussels or everything put to us by our European Community partners. As a past member of the diplomatic service and a Minister in the Foreign Office, I am aware of the extraordinary difficulties and complexities involved in dealing with the Community. It would be strange were it to be otherwise. There are 12 nations with many historical and cultural differences and many different national economic interests. However, the frustrations and challenges of welding together the European Community must be more than worth while.
It is crucial to Britain's future as well as that of western Europea to maintain the impetus of the Europen Community. Conservative Members understand—I am not sure about Opposition Members—that the broad forces of history mean that if western Europe is to compete with the north American complex, the Japanese and the Pacific rim complex, it must continue to develop a high level of co-operation. The slog of day-to-day negotiation, in which Ministers and Government officials are involved in Brussels and elsewhere, must be continued issue by issue and boring point by boring point, and I should like to claim a deep appreciation of those difficulties.
The impression is being given that we are making those difficulties greater than they need be. We should offer a more flexible approach to frontiers and consider extremely positively the possibility of national identity cards, which has many attractions and links with the previous debate about the problems of football hooliganism. Paragraph 6 of the working party's report on football hooliganism specifically excluded examination of the issue of identity cards, as it was outside its terms of reference. I strongly urge the Government to give early and positive consideration to that possibility, which would bring benefits to many sectors, including the reduction of frontier controls, which must surely be one of the major elements of the single European market, to which we are committed and which has such clear advantages for the United Kingdom.
The same positive spirit is required in our approach to the complex issues of the harmonisation of VAT rates and excise duties. The same applies to the long-running question of our participation in the European monetary system. The issue will be given greater impetus as we approach the 1990s and the complete freeing of exchange controls. The Government, with foresight and courage, led the way nine years ago by abolishing exchange controls.


We are all aware of the opportunities offered to the City of London and the financial services sector, which is so vibrant and dominant.
The issue of European monetary co-operation must surely be tackled. For many years the Government have said that it will be considered when the time and exchange rate are right. As hon. Members have said, the pound has been high and low, but at some point we must judge the time to be right; we cannot postpone a decision for much longer. Given the propensity to inflation, which seems so deep-seated in Britain, it would be a particular benefit to take a positive approach to the greater harmonisation and involvement of Britain's economy and financial institutions with those of Europe. We can avoid the dangers while receiving the benefits.
I am deeply concerned about the lack of coherence in Government policy, some of the negative aspects of which have been revealed on a depressingly personal basis. We may not agree with the contributions of Lord Cockfield or Mr. Delors, but in matters in respect of which there is a broad historical sweep of near-inevitability, we must not miss the bus out of some pique or apprehension about the influence of one individual. The issues at stake are far greater than that.
Part of the responsibility for the dangers that I see emerging must rest with this Chamber. Frankly, the House and the country have never seriously become engaged in the basic issues of Europe, as several other European Community partners have done. We saw the manifestation of that in the results of the central Hampshire European parliamentary by-election. I am delighted to say that the Conservative candidate won, but I understand that he won on a vote of 12 per cent. of the electorate. A vote of such derisory proportions is very sad.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: We were second.

Mr. Whitney: To be second out of a vote of 12 per cent. is not something from which even the Labour party, in its present desperate state, should take comfort.
I take it that we—even the Labour party—are now somewhat mildly committed to the European concept. Only 12 per cent. of the voters of central Hampshire decided to turn out. We must attach blame to the Chamber as a whole. All hon. Members know that, for many years now, the appearance on the Order Paper of European Community documents X, Y and Z has been the death knell of serious debate. We all know that, at the maximum, 12 hon. Members are regular attenders at such debates. There are perhaps two hon. Members who risk giving the impression that they will accept anything from Brussels, unseen and unsigned, and that they will accept anything that Brussels says. It is a false impression, but it is one that they risk having attributed to them.
There are half a dozen or perhaps 10 hon. Members who are part of the small minority in the country who have simply never accepted the judgment of the electorate of this country that we are part of Europe, that we must make a firm contribution to it and make a leading contribution to the development of co-operation with our European allies. The cause of moderation, of pragmatism, of balance, of criticising some things, of explaining everything and accepting most of what comes from

Brussels is left to the unfortunate inhabitant of the Government Front Bench at the time. The rest is silence. The mechanisms of the House should be used more effectively.
I fully accept my personal share of the blame. We should no longer abandon European debates to excessive enthusiasts⁁the excessive anti-Europeans and pro-Europeans. The voice of the solid centre—I claim to be a member of it—needs to be heard much more. We must not leave the matter to the fanatics on both sides of the House.
In particular, it is time for the Government to take another look at their overall position as we move to 1992 and to co-ordinate and cohere more effectively to actions across the spectrum to take account of the fact that we signed the Single European Act. From some Ministers' statements, one might from time to time infer that they have not read the Single European Act. Anyone would think that they had taken the country through it in a fit of oblivion, without understanding majority voting and all that was implied. The fact is that we signed the Single European Act; we understood it.
The Conservative party has a tradition of commitment to the European concept that has lasted for decades. That does not mean that we accept every daft idea—every social harmonisation proposal—that comes out of Europe. If we risk being caricatured as adopting a generally carping and negative attitude to the principles of co-operation, we make it much more difficult to achieve the objectives that we must achieve. We make it much more difficult to defend British interests if we appear to be negative. We also make it more difficult for our friends in Europe to help us to achieve those objectives.
Let us look again at the signature of the Single European Act. It might be thought that some wicked, slippery, devious members of my former service, the diplomatic service, somehow slipped the measure through. I do not think that that is likely; I have too much respect for my right hon. Friends in the Government to believe that that can possibly have happened.
I pin most of my hopes on a very important memorandum that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed to her colleagues in August 1984. The Government as a whole would do well to take that memorandum out of the archives and dust it down. They should confirm that the principles enunciated in it remain the mainspring of the Government's approach to Europe and to the task of achieving the goals of 1992.
My right hon. Friend made it very clear that what was needed was
a series of new policies to promote the economic, social and political growth
on which the future well-being of the Community depended. She said:
This means giving greater depth to the Community in both its internal and external activities.
She spoke of the need to create
a genuine common market in goods and services which is envisaged in the Treaty of Rome
but said that that could be achieved only by
a sustained effort to remove the remaining obstacles to intra-Community trade.
Only by that means could we enable
the citizens of Europe to benefit from the dynamic effects of the fully integrated common market with immense purchasing power.


My right hon. Friend spoke about the need to co-operate on environmental matters. That was four years ago, which shows that our commitment to green policies is by no means a recent innovation.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that it must be our objective
to aim beyond the Common Commercial Policy through Political Cooperation towards common approach to external affairs.
That, too, tends to be forgotten as we concentrate on economic issues and the benefits that we rightly hope to obtain.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Commission was central to the functioning of the Community and that Europe needs to advance its internal development. One of the objectives that she enunciated was to
heighten the consciousness among our citizens of what unites us.
In recent months, too much effort has been made to heighten consciousness of what divides us. We are perfectly well aware of what divides us and we need more emphasis on the positive aspects. Certainly the nation and the British business community needs it. If we are to achieve all that 1992 offers, the country needs a much more positive lead from the Government in all those areas.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I would not wish to embarrass the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), by saying that he made a brave and interesting speech—as he did on 3 April 1982 and on several other occasions. In normal circumstances it would not have occurred to me at 5.30 am or at any other hour to protest about the appointment of a British Commissioner in the Community or even to put in for a Consolidated Fund debate on the appointment of British Commissioners.
The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is probably the most academically successful Member of any British Cabinet since 1979 and arguably of any recent Administration. Moreover, as I am reminded in my many questions, alas unreached, to the Prime Minister, he has important experience of the great offices of state as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which should be invaluable in a vice-president of the European Commission. I hope that I am not being churlish if I wonder sotto voce whether his behaviour as Home Secretary, as indicated in his first speech on capital punishment and the broadcasting authorities, gave certain doubts about his attitude and judgment.
As a member of the indirectly elected European Parliament from 1976–79, I formed the impression that attitude and judgment are extremely important if a Commissioner is to be effective with his colleagues on the Commission. I think of Finn Olav Gundelach and Guido Brunner, both extremely effective Commissioners who were guests in my constituency and whom I knew well, of Pierre Lardinois and Claude Cheysson, with whom I worked, and of my excellent working relationship with Christopher Soames and George Thomson. I say this having had four years' experience in the Parliament.
In one crucial respect circumstances are simply not normal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a cloud hanging over him and until such time as that cloud has been lifted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I should remind the hon. Gentleman at this point that, to the best of my knowledge, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is a Member of this House and the hon. Gentleman must not reflect on either his integrity or honour.

Mr. Dalyell: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have been here for a debate on the European Community. He has been appointed vice-president of the Commission and it is extremely odd that when the House of Commons debates the future of the Community he should not bother to come.
My point is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be going as British vice-president to the Commission, let alone as the Commissioner of financial institutions. This is neither the time nor the place to regurgitate as I did on 28 July 1986, at column 851, or on 22 April 1988, at column 1164, the details of the Westland affair. I simply remind the House that we are required to believe that over 14 days in January 1986 the right hon. and learned Gentleman behaved in such a way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing precisely that against which I cautioned him. I hope that he will not make a speech aimed at denigrating the character of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to denigrate anybody's character. I am sticking very carefully to fact, and the fact of the matter is that the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman treated his civil servants, his Cabinet colleagues and his Prime Minister about a Law Officer's letter was not acceptable to the House. If we do not believe that about the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we can only conclude that someone else was to blame for the outrageous treatment of the Solicitor-General's letter. That someone else could only be Mr. Charles Powell, Mr. Bernard Ingham and the Prime Minister herself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue that line under the debate heading that is before us. The hon. Gentleman must not use this debate to reopen such matters when, on a number of occasions, he has been cautioned about his excesses.

Mr. Dalyell: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to go to the Commission, I think we can agree that he should go proud, that he should go clear and that he should go absolved from all blame of misleading his colleagues in Parliament on any occasion, especially during the Westland affair. As matters stand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the scapegoat. Nobody else is carrying the can. It is a disgrace to our country and to our Parliament that a colleague should be going to one of the most prestigious jobs in the Community—we shall leave the salary out of it—that Britain can offer any of our countrymen when this affair has not been cleared up.
There is another pertinent consideration. No other Minister on any occasion has treated a Select Committee of the House as the right hon. and learned Gentleman treated the Select Commitee on Westland. None of us who witnessed it has in our parliamentary lifetimes seen behaviour to compare with the arrogant stonewalling that the right hon. and learned Member demonstrated when he refused to answer legitimate questions put by parliamentary colleagues. Yet this is the colleague that we send—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me the first time, when I said that he must not seek to make a speech that would reflect adversely on the honour or integrity of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, but he is persisting in doing precisely that. He must not persist; he must cease to do that.

Mr. Dalyell: I am just referring to his parliamentary behaviour. Surely it is legitimate to comment on the unprecedented parliamentary behaviour of a right hon. and learned Gentleman when appearing before a Select Committee of the House. We must ask why. Because the appointment is a reward forced on the Prime Minister in recognition of the greatest service that a Cabinet Minister in such circumstances can render the occupant of Downing street, and that is the supreme service—of silence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite clearly completely disregarding the advice that I have offered to him. If he continues to persist with the line he is pursuing, I shall have no option but to instruct him to resume his seat and terminate his speech.

Mr. Dalyell: I find that absolutely extraordinary, because the words are carefully chosen and the subject is entirely in order. What we are considering—incidentally, this is the last opportunity for consideration before his appointment—is the sending of one of our number as vice-president of the Commission, who was the recipient of a unique resignatory letter from the Prime Minister, which ended by saying:
I hope it will not be long before you return to high office to continue your ministerial career".
The Prime Minister has never said that to anyone before. She certainly did not say it to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). This is absolutely unique. I say, as a matter of fact, that it looks to many of us that the vice-presidency of the European Commission is a second-best compromise pay-off for the promised Cabinet job.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given sufficient warnings to the hon. Gentleman, but he is persisting in disregarding my advice. I have no option but to tell him to resume his seat and terminate his speech.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in disregarding a ruling from the Chair. I have given the hon. Gentleman an instruction, and he knows sufficiently well that he must obey it.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a quite unreasonable instruction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to debate my ruling with the hon. Gentleman. He must resume his seat, otherwise—

Mr. Dalyell: It is a quite unreasonable instruction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no option but to instruct the hon. Gentleman to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of this day's sitting.

Mr. Dalyell: No. That is a quite unreasonable instruction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to argue with my ruling.

Mr. Dalyell: I am raising—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman disregarding my ruling?

Mr. Dalyell: I am disregarding your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is totally unreasonable, and what is at issue—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it might be sensible at this time of the morning—

Mr. Dalyell: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in saying no to me.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I will offer some advice to the hon. Gentleman. It may benefit all of us if we reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said and if he reflects on what he has said and on what I have ruled. I suspend the sitting for five minutes.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mr. Dalyell: On the ground that I do not wish to embarrass the Chair, because I understand that there are not enough Members here for you to name me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or in any way to inhibit my colleagues who have stayed up all night to take part in their debates, I shall withdraw to facilitate matters.

The hon. Member then withdrew.

Mr. George Robertson: This must be the only Parliament in the European Community, or in the world, that would choose to debate such an important and far-reaching subject as this at 10 minutes to six in the morning. It is perverse and almost eccentric that we should be having this debate now. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on securing this debate under the Consolidated Fund, but I cannot commend him on the fact that he drew a 5 am start.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said in the less controversial part of his speech, the hon. Member for Wycombe made a brave speech which, at another time of the day, might have been regarded as highly controversial. When the outside world reads Hansard in 48 hours' time, his speech may yet put him on the front pages.
The hon. Gentleman identified several points that are of interest to the House. I take issue with his comment that the Prime Minister's speech in Bruges was popular and that that was regrettable. I do not believe that her speech was popular. The only test of opinion on it was in a poll conducted for The Mail on Sunday a couple of weeks later. It showed that the Prime Minister was out of tune with what the majority of the British people think about the future of Europe. Another reason why it was not popular with the public was that it was insincere. It contrasted with her decisions in the past on the European Community, and


the British people do not easily take to the double standards represented by what she said at the College of Europe.
The hon. Member for Wycombe admitted mea culpa on not attending enough European Community debates. As one who is obliged because of his position to attend all these debates, I know that they attract only small, rarefied audiences. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he will attend our debates and make a positive contribution to them, the whole House will thoroughly applaud it.
The hon. Gentleman said that Ministers were giving the impression of not having read the Single European Act. I spent many hours on the Floor of the House when the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, which brought the Single European Act into force, went through all its stages. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Ministers were aware of what was going on. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who sadly is not with us tonight—no one regrets that more than the Under-Secretary of State himself—knew the implications of majority voting, increased powers for the European Parliament and moves towards further political co-operation. The only person who was unaware of what the Single European Act meant was the one who agreed that it should be signed. The occupant of No. 10 Downing street is going through hoops, trying desperately to escape from the implications of what she has decided.
The notion that it was a nasty idea slipped through by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by the subversive members of the Diplomatic Service beggars belief when we remember that the Prime Minister voted in the Lobby on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 1986, including voting for the guillotine when the House's consideration of that vital measure was truncacted after an all-too-brief debate. There is a further irony, as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—who has now apparently joined the ranks of CND, and clearly regrets his role in the Single European Act—was the Leader of the House who gave us the guillotine on that measure.
The hon. Member for Wycombe pinpointed the dilemma faced by the Government. That dilemma is caused by the fact that the Prime Minister acts both as Government and Opposition. She signed the Single European Act and then went to the College of Europe denouncing everything in it. She signed the Fontainebleau agreement on the future financing of the Community and shortly afterwards denounced the basis of the settlement. With a Prime Minister who can act both as Prime Minister and as Leader of the Opposition, it is far from surprising that the hon. Member for Wycombe, a Government loyalist, finds the Government's position incoherent. He is not alone in that.
Business finds that incoherence confusing and our partners in the European Community find it difficult to understand. They find it especially difficult to understand why the Prime Minister insists on labelling them all as "Socialists and standardisers", since the people whom she appears to include in that gratuitous insult include Chancellor Kohl of West Germany, a good Christian Democrat, and Prime Minister Dimita of Italy, another Christian Democrat of a Right-wing persuasion. However, they all come in for that incredible hostility and sloganising abuse to which the Prime Minister is so prone.
There is incoherence between the Prime Minister's actions in agreeing to the Single European Act and her

rhetoric in denouncing it shortly afterwards when she had forced it through the House. There are also incoherences and inconsistencies in Government. The Prime Minister said in Bruges:
The Community … must not be ossified by endless regulation.
She said in the most widely quoted part of that speech:
We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.
On 23 November, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Wallasey, made a speech of equal importance at a management centre Europe conference on industrial relations in Europe. Apparently out of touch with her leader, she said:
We need progress on the agreed programme of action on health and safety at work … 1992 gives us a unique opportunity for concerted progress in combating unemployment. With over 15 and a half million jobless, unemployment remains the EC's biggest priority. Member state Governments must accord it the priority it deserves.
As a final, crushing blow to the Prime Minister's view of the Europe, the Minister of State said:
Britain is sometimes charged with having no interest in the social development of Europe. This is simply not true. There must be a social dimension to the single market.
If the hon. Member for Wycombe, who has, after all, been discarded from the Foreign Office despite his pretences at loyalism, finds the Government's actions incoherent, surely the Minister of State, who is still within the charmed magic circle, even temporarily—ladies are exiting from the Government rather quickly these days—is pointing to a more detailed contrast with what is happening.
In the lead-up to the European elections, we are beginning to see the stark contrast between the different visions of Europe. The Prime Minister's vision is one of deregulation, liberalisation and an unrestrained free market without barriers or constraints. Hers is the vision of big Europe for big business, with the weak going to the wall and the mighty flourishing and where standards of conduct and employment, whether achieved through law or negotiation, are abandoned in pursuit of profit.
In contrast to that Thatcherite vision of Europe, there is the Opposition's view of a Europe where growth is encouraged, but where balance in industry, employment and the environment is assured and guaranteed. In our view of Europe, the vulnerable regions, people, industries and firms receive protection from crude market forces. Our vision of Europe is one in which "high standards", to quote the Single European Act, in the workplace, in peripheral areas and in industrial activity is assured. For example, in research and technology the interests of the public will never be reflected in short-term drives for profit. Those areas will be set and policed by accountable public institutions.
The Prime Minister regards the European Community as a huge test bed for a continental Thatcherite experiment. If we lived in more enlightened days and the hon. Member for Wycombe was in charge of Government policy on the single market and the Labour party's views ruled rather than the more philistine values on the Government Benches, Europe would be the true and appropriate location for a real bid to ensure our children's future. It would be a Europe in which joint action by Governments could tackle unemployment and the special misery and waste of youth unemployment and where


training in skills could be achieved on a continental level to face the challenges from the United States of America and Japan.
The hon. Member for Wycombe spelt out those challenges only too eloquently. It would be a Europe of pooled resources where universities and technical centres could be harnessed to build Europe's new competitive edge. It would be a Europe in which the environmental problems that know no frontiers and which pervade our continent could, with cash and the political will, be confronted properly. That is what Europe should be about. It should not be about the narrow, short-sighted pursuit of mega-business moderated only by fashionable words, but with no action on the green issues. That latter approach singles out our Prime Minister from the more aware and socially concerned European leaders today.
So many issues arise from the debate that I do not intend to tackle them all. Perhaps in due course the Government will give us time to debate the six-monthly report of the European Community, which always disappears over the horizon every time that it appears on the agenda. However, a number of issues give cause for concern to which the Minister seconded here to do night duty on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Minister of State can give us some answers. For example, I would like to know what happened at the meeting attended by a Minister from the Department of Employment at which some decisions were taken about improving standards of health and safety.
On Saturday,The Guardian reported
Britain drags feet on 'Social Europe' plans.
It appears that a British Minister stood in the way of an agreement designed to raise common health and safety standards, and that an unnamed British official—we return to the unnamed officials mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—commented that there is
a conflict between British legal traditions and the absolute guarantees of protection against risk favoured by `continental' governments.
That attempted sabotage by the British Government was reported last Saturday. Today's newspapers only touch on the matter, but perhaps the Minister will give the House the benefit of his superior knowledge and reveal precisely what happened at that meeting of the Council. It is so rare for the House to hear anything of Council meetings.
Can the Minister say what is the United Kingdom's response to the Court of Auditor's report on the common agricultural policy, in respect of fraud and discrepancies, which was published on 13 December? That report has two implications for the United Kingdom. First, it throws doubt on guarantees obtained by the Prime Minister at the penultimate European summit and on the legally binding guarantees on agricultural production agreed then.
The Court of Auditors identified a form of creative accountancy that the British Government would outlaw in this country, whereby the European Community manipulates its annual budget by cutting short the budget year for farm expenditure, once preset ceilings are reached. That is an ingenious scheme and one that could be adopted by local councils simply reaching their guideline totals and then declaring their financial year to be at an end. There would be no problems for local authorities if they could adopt that form of creative accountancy.
The report's second implication for the United Kingdom taxpayer is that vast amounts of money are being wasted not just because of negligence—although that accounts for a substantial proportion—but by an equal if not greater amount through fraud. A vast sum of United Kingdom taxpayers' money, as well as that of taxpayers in other member states, if being wasted as a result of sophisticated, highly lucrative and well organised fraud existing on a large scale, and identified but underestimated by the Court of Auditors. It will be interesting to know the Government's view on that subject.
Finally, will the Minister enlighten the House in respect of leaks appearing in certain newspapers, about a document arising out of the Delors committee, established at the Brussels summit to investigate monetary union? I refer to an article by Mr. Peter Norman, published in theFinancial Times on 12 December, from which it appears that the committee reached the conclusion that certain of the Community's regions, including many of the United Kingdom's most fragile regions, risk considerable suffering if the momentum towards European monetary union gathers support at the pace being suggested by certain European maximalists.
In the Financial Times article, Dr. Helmut Schlesinger, deputy governor of the Bundesbank, warns that 1992 could lead to
a further relative decline in already structurally weak regions and a deterioration in the trade balances of less competitive members of the European monetary system.
That is a serious allegation and conclusion to emerge from a committee established to take forward the momentum for European monetary union.
Although it is late in the evening, and although the Minister, like other right hon. and hon. Members, is not at his brightest, we have now a rare opportunity to secure a ministerial reply to those important questions. I hope that the Minister, when winding up, will address his mind to them, as well as to the significant points raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I much enjoyed listening to the fantasies of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I must say that he has worked hard in seeking to develop a sensible and coherent Opposition policy on Europe and I wish him well in his continuing fight, but his description of the Opposition view of Europe was not, I suspect, universally shared by hon. Members on the Benches behind him.
Let me first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on his success in the ballot, while not entirely congratulating him on the timing of that success. I think that the whole House listened to his contribution with considerable interest. I remember vividly his speech in April 1982 and tonight's speech continued in the tradition which he started then. Whatever view we hold of what he said, it was a courageous and consistent speech.
Let me next deal with some of the individual points that have been made, and apologise sincerely for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who I am sure would much rather be here at this time of the morning than attending the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels. The


House will be looking forward to the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe to the various scrutiny debates on European documents. An interesting discussion is now in progress—it is not a matter for Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—about how we manage our scrutiny and assessment of European legislation, and I am sure that that debate will continue.
My hon. Friend commented on the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Bruges. Unlike, I suspect, the hon. Member for Hamilton, he had clearly read the speech in considerable detail, and he drew attention to the powerful points made in it. The bedrock of my right hon. Friend's speech was her clear statement that Britain's destiny is in Europe, and that Britain is as committed to the European Community as any other member country.
Of course the Europe of the future will continue to be made up of different national personalities and traditions. It is not only my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who believes that; Chancellor Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany has said clearly that the construction of Europe must not mean the suppression of national identities. All of us in Europe want to build a community that is able to ensure the future prosperity and security of its peoples in the harshly competitive world to which my right hon. Friend referred. Her message is that Europeans should work closely and effectively together on the things that we do better together, rather than on things that we do better alone.
My hon. Friend also referred to frontier controls. It will be important, because of 1992, to minimise delays at frontiers and to make travel easier for EC citizens. However, that does not mean that all frontier controls must be abolished. The EC needs a mechanism that is able to combat terrorism, crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. The Rhodes summit reaffirmed that requirement and linked the reduction of further frontier checks with more effective co-operation between member states. As a result of the Rhodes summit, national co-ordinators are to be appointed. They will be responsible for providing assistance over frontier problems.
Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Hamilton ought not to rely on reports in The Guardian. Agreement was reached on health and safety matters at the Council meeting last Friday. I understand that a parliamentary question is to be answered in the near future. It will comment on the outcome of the Council meeting. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out that the Council had to deal with a legal problem, but we believe that there has been a satisfactory outcome. I am sure that he will be scurrying to Hansard to read the answer.
The hon. Gentleman referred to progress on monetary co-operation in the so-called Delors committee. The committee's discussions continue. It is due to complete its proceedings in good time to enable the Minister for Economic Affairs and the Minister for Finance to examine the committee's recommendations before the European Council meeting in Madrid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said that he thought that the United Kingdom was being left behind on monetary co-operation. However, we have led the way over the abolition of restrictions on the movement of capital and exchange controls. That is a fundamental first step, and we are delighted that the rest of the Community is following our example. A practical sign of our

commitment to progress is the introduction of the ecu-denominated Treasury bond. That is an important step.
The hon. Member for Hamilton, casting around for things to say—for which I do not blame him at this time in the morning—asked about the annual report of the Court of Auditors and referred to agriculture fraud. The report states that futher action needs to be taken. We intend fully to support the report. That is consistent with our approach to agriculture. We have been one of the leaders in the fight against fraud in the EC.
The hon. Member for Hamilton expressed concern about the so-called 10-month year. That was a one-off measure to which the hon. Member has referred on previous occasions. It was adopted by the Council in October 1987. At the February meeting of the Council in Brussels, a two-and-a-half month delay was agreed for the payment of advances. We believe that the Council's decision will improve budgetary control over agriculture spending.
This debate provides a valuable opportunity to assess the state of the European Community at the end of 1988 and to look briefly at some of the prospects for next year.
In 1988 we have seen major changes in the way in which the Community's finances are run. I refer in particular to the rules governing the operation of the CAP. In February, the Council reached agreement on a series of stabilisers for cereals, oil seeds and other principle agricultural commodities. The Community has given those stabilisers legal backing through a series of detailed regulations. For the first time, we now have an important automatic mechanism for controlling the growth of financial support to the agricultural sector, a signal to the outside world that we really mean to control the CAP.
The stabilisers are working. Since the summer there have been automatic price cuts for a series of crops. It is intended that there will be a 3 per cent. price cut in cereals in 1989. We have also witnessed major reductions in surplus stocks of agricultural products; for example, beef stocks have fallen by 25 per cent. during the past 12 months.
The second major element of improved budget discipline agreed last February was a legally binding financial guideline for agricultural spending. In future, spending on the CAP will be able to grow by no more than three quarters of the rate of Community GNP. That is about 2 per cent. per annum in real terms. That means that CAP support will represent a steadily shrinking percentage of the Community's GNP.
In the first budget introduced under the new procedures, provision for agriculture is fully £1·2 billion below the guideline agreed in February. I am sure that we all welcome that development.
Hon. Members may have felt something missing from their lives this year—the budget crisis which normally reverberates around the Community at this time of year. The peaceful, almost routine procedure in which the 1989 budget has been adopted is a good illustration of the way in which the Community has acknowledged the truth of a persistent United Kingdom theme that a sound Community cannot be built on unsound foundations. The future financing agreement that we secured in February at least gives the Community a sound foundation of budgetary discipline. All parties—the Commission, the Council and the Parliament—now accept that that reform was right, was long overdue and must continue.


[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and commonwealth Affairs]
At the Hanover European Council in June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her colleagues agreed that progress towards the single market is now irreversible. That means that we really will have a single market with all the opportunities that that will bring for British and European business. Of course, as the House knows, there is a great deal still to be done. The Hanover Council laid down four priorities for work in the immediate future which are important for the United Kingdom.
The Greek presidency in the second half of this year has made solid progress, for example by achieving a common position on the public works directive and by opening up public procurement to competition throughout the Community. That benefits the consumer and British business. The Greeks have also put together a package of key food law measures—a matter to which we attach great importance. I hope that further progress will be made at the last internal market Council for the year which is taking place tomorrow.
The Spanish presidency will begin work in the new year with a fair wind. The priorities fixed at Hanover were confirmed at the recent Rhodes Council. There is plenty for the Spanish presidency to do, and for the French presidency that follows it.
Liberalisation, competition and deregulation must not be limited to the Community's internal affairs. The Rhodes European Council devoted considerable time to discussing the Community's role in the world. Heads of Government issued a declaration emphasising the Community's important contribution to sustaining a liberal economic and trading environment—a clear message to the world that 1992 will not lead to greater external protection as internal barriers come down. In other words, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, there will be no fortress Europe.
We want the single market to contribute directly to the greater liberalisation of world trade. That liberalisation is essential if the world economy is to continue to expand. The best way to pursue that aim is through multilateral negotiations in the GATT. The United Kingdom and all

member states want the multilateral system to be strengthened and expanded. The current Uruguay round is essential to that process. As the House knows, we are now at the halfway point of the round. Some good progress has been made but there is still much to do.
We were disappointed when the ministerial meeting earlier this month was unable to agree on a detailed framework for negotiations on the reform of agriculture. The Community made great efforts to find common ground with the United States. However, the United States insisted on pressing for a commitment to the total elimination of agricultural support by an agreed deadline. In our view, that was not politically feasible. We trust that the new United States Administration will find it possible to be more flexible. All concerned will have to work constructively in the coming weeks if agreement is to be achieved. We shall be doing all that we can to achieve that end.
The strengthening of the financial foundations of the Community, the progress towards the single market within the Community and the challenges of GATT underline the importance to us of the way in which the Community is developing. Our commitment is not in doubt. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her Bruges speech:
our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.
One cannot have a firmer commitment than that.
At the end of a year of achievements, we can face with confidence the challenges that the Europe of 1992 will bring. In 1988 we have secured common-sense budgetary reforms and the acceleration of the drive towards the single market. Both developments have been welcomed by the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Looking ahead, I see the steady development of a stronger enterprise Europe with less regulation and less interference with markets and, as a result, more growth and more jobs. I see the steady development of a Community, the growing economic influence of which is reflected in greater political influence across the world with the United Kingdom playing a prominent part.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe for drawing our attention to the Community's development, for inspiring an unusual and lively debate and for obtaining an optimistic view of the Opposition's policies in Europe from the hon. Member for Hamilton.

Orders of the Day — Rating Reform

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the poll tax and local authority social services records. I am doubly grateful for the fact that I am able to use the words "poll tax." The authorities of the House gave permission for the "Poll Tax" to be the subject of the debate. At one time I thought that I might be forced to put a different description on the Order Paper. When I submitted my document I offered an alternative title because I did not want to be ruled out of order. I am glad that a useful precedent has been set in this debate and in the tenth debate on the Order Paper. The words "Poll Tax" can appear in the title of a debate so that people outside know what we are talking about.
I promise the Minister that before I sit down there will be one occasion on which I will be forced to refer to the poll tax as something else. The circumstances are such that I have no alternative. I shall stick to the narrow issue of social services records, but I make no apology for returning to the important issue of the poll tax, which was not fully debated during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 because it was guillotined in Committee and on the Floor of the House. There has been no discourse by the Government about their intentions or about why they are sticking to their plans for social services records, which is why, before the poll tax comes into operation, I chose the subject for debate.
There is no access for poll tax registration officers to Inland Revenue records or to those of the police, health authorities and employers—even to local authority records. All names and addresses held by a local authority's social services department are accessible to the poll tax registration officer. No doubt those records will include people reporting possible child abuse, the names and addresses of those involved in adoption cases and the names and addresses of families who, for various reasons, want their addresses kept secret, such as a woman who is regularly beaten by a man. The Government make a remarkable distinction between sensitive and non-sensitive information. I want to explore that distinction.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
We have made it clear that the power"—
the power for registration officers to have access to information—
will be used to ensure that registration officers do not have access, for example, to social work case files and national sources of data".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 9 February 1988; c. 484.]
When the issue was raised in the other place, the Earl of Caithness said:
Sensitive data in social services records will not be available, and rightly so."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June 1988; Vol. 497, c. 1112.]
The Minister later said:
It is the Government's firmly held belief that certain non-sensitive information, once it is held within a local authority, should be available to the registration officer for the purposes of compiling the register."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 1988; Vol. 498, c. 1600.]
The Minister was taking part in a debate on excluding information relating to all social services purposes. He said that both proposals were unacceptable to the Government for reasons that he had given. Social work case records will

not be available, but all the names and addresses held by social services departments will be. One must contrast that with Inland Revenue records, of names and addresses only. Health authority records and employment records are so sensitive that they are not available, but names and addresses in social services records are non-sensitive and are therefore available.
This issue has nothing to do with promoting evasion or protecting evaders. The poll tax is legal and must be collected. If the issue of evasion and evaders were raised, the immediate argument would be, "Give access to employment records, to names and addresses held by the Inland Revenue and to health authority records." No argument can be made about social services departments trying to protect or promote evasion. That argument can be put out of the way straight away.
On 28 October, the Government issued draft poll tax guidelines in a hefty document which has no number because it is a draft. The consultation period lasts until 23 December—later this week. It is the first set of poll tax administration enforcement regulations—there will be others—amounting to several pages of A4. The list of recipients includes all local authority associations, the Small Landlords Association, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the British Property Federation, and all sorts of bodies, but, of course, not Parliament. As legislators, that is one of our complaints: when the regulations come before Parliament, we shall have no opportunity to amend them. That is one of the problems with delegating legislation. Although a consultation process is going on outside this place, on matters which, because the Government used the guillotine, were not. properly debated in the House or in Committee, we were deprived of an opportunity to consider them. That is another reason I have raised the subject tonight.
The Association of Directors of Social Services and the British Association of Social Workers are not on the list of recipients. Obviously, they and local authority associations have had access to the draft regulations—they are not secret.
Draft regulation 6 refers to information obtainable by poll tax registration officers from public bodies. The argument is that the regulations fall far short of what is required. The regulation does not place all social service records off limits. It does not address the fact that names and addresses in social service records can of themselves constitute sensitive information. There are some circumstances in which a name and address can constitute sensitive information. There are safeguards. I would be a fool to say that there are none, having spent hundreds of hours considering the poll tax Bill.
In consultation rather than co-operation with local authority associations, the Government are producing practice notes. In particular I refer to the data protection practice note, which is practice note No. 4. In chapter 3, paragraph 4, there is discussion of the Data Protection Act 1984 and the exemptions for personal data from disclosure provisions. Paragraph 3.6 of the practice note states:
In addition to these exemptions there are a series of partial exemptions from the disclosure and access procedures set out in the Data Protection Act. Section 28(1) specifies that information held for three purposes below may be liable for special treatment. The purposes are:

(a) the prevention or detection of crime
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders
(c) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty.



Information held for these purposes is exempt from the 'subject access' and 'non disclosure provisions' of the Act where the application of those provisions would be likely to prejudice any of the purposes. Similarly the Act provides that data is exempt from the First Data Protection Principle in any case where its application would be likely to prejudice any of the purposes.
Paragraph 3.7 consists of one sentence. It is useful to put it on the record. It states:
It should, however, be noted that the community charge will not, according to legal advice received by the authors, fall within the definition of a tax or a duty as provided for in section 28(1) of the 1984 Date Protection Act.
The preface to the practice note also refers to general data protection guidelines for the registration officers in England and Wales. Paragraph 3(e) makes it clear that individual citizens must be told that the information that they give can be required by the poll tax registration office:
If there is a possibility that the information held for another purpose will be disclosed to the CCRO"—
the community charge registration officer—
then wherever possible the individuals concerned should be informed that this might be the case.
That is crucial, because it means that a local authority social service department can never say to a client or informant that it can offer complete confidentiality. In fact, the reverse is true. The practice note and the data protection principle make it quite clear that local authority social service departments must inform anyone who approaches them—client or informant—that their name and address can be made available to the poll tax registration officer.
That brings me to the Government propaganda leaflet published last week, entitled "You and the Community Charge—Your Step by Step Guide". It is incredible. Page 2 says:
You will almost certainly have read about the new community charge in the papers, or heard about it on television. You will probably have seen it called the poll tax, but the community charge is its real name.
Before one even reaches the list of contents, one reads:
The booklet is quite detailed and you may not want to read all of it. You will find it helpful to read pages 6-14, however, as these apply to almost everyone.
For the purpose of this debate, I shall stick to page 11, which deals with the transfer of information. It answers the question, "Will Registration Officers be able to get information from anywhere else?" having mentioned the electoral register and so on. It says:
The inquiry form will be the main source of information for Registration Officers. They will not be able to approach the Inland Revenue, for example, or to use any sensitive information (such as confidential records held by police authorities). They will be able to refer to other local authority records, but only for the information that they need for the register.
The only information that they need for the register is a person's name and address, his age and the length of time that he has lived at a given address. But they will require more than names and addresses. The booklet refers to sensitive information. This House has a right to complain—perhaps the other place has greater cause for complaint—that no mention is made of sensitive social service information. People are advised to read pages 6 to 14 of the pamphlet as the rest will probably be too boring, but the pamphlet really should have said something about sensitive social service information. Page 11 gives one the strong impression that the Government are allowing open

season on social service records. I do not think that that is what they wanted to do, but that will be the effect of their proposals.
Let me give a few examples to show how social service records giving a person's name and address, and his age or the length of time for which he has lived at an address contain information that is sensitive in itself irrespective of the details.
I shall give the House five brief examples. Many social workers are located in hospital social work departments. In the inner-city part of my constituency is the Birchfield medical centre. It is first-class and doctors and health service personnel from other areas queue to visit Dr. Pike and his colleagues. Indeed, the Home Secretary has visited it for a private briefing. They have a research effort, foot doctors, a link with the university and social workers attached who are employed by the local authority. That means that the social workers share information with their medical and nursing colleagues.
In addition, social workers approved under mental health legislation are required to be involved in certain compulsory admissions to hospital of people suffering from mental illness. In each of those cases social workers are employed by, and their records are the property of, the local authority. Accordingly, the Government's assurances on health information would be subverted in respect of names and addresses where vulnerable people are helped by social workers who happen to be members of a multi-disciplinary team. That cannot be good for the patients, let alone for the social workers' professional effort.
In my second example, names and addresses are the highly sensitive information. We all know that social workers are often the intermediaries between hostile individuals, occasionally within a family. They have to protect the whereabouts of some family members—for example, of a mother whose children are at risk from a violent father. Such mothers would not be reassured to know that after leaving the matrimonial home their names and addresses were on a public register. Moreover, there is the theoretical possibility of the mother having to demonstrate to the registrar the need to exclude that information from the register. Some Scottish social workers have not yet received replies from the Scottish Office to questions about parents against registration and given that the Scots are a year ahead of the English that does not encourage us to believe that this has been thought through properly. We in England and Wales must learn from the experience of our Scottish colleagues.
Thirdly, in some circumstances the expectation of names and addresses being available to the registrar could be detrimental to wider interests of society. In other words, it is incumbent on local authority social services departments to make it clear to anybody who either offers them information or makes a complaint about something in the community, that in so doing their name and address can be made available to the poll tax registration officer. It is inadequate to claim that a member of the public would not know for certain that his name and address was made available from social service records. Many would deduce that, but they need to be told.
For example, it could be important for a neglected child regularly to attend a day nursery where help can be given in parenting skills and supervision of the child maintained. That course of action, which I know from constituency experience many parents are reluctant to take, would


juxtapose with a demand for the poll tax. The obvious conclusion would be drawn and the child might be made more vulnerable by being withdrawn from the service. It is no good saying, "Ah well, the parents shouldn't do that because they cannot escape poll tax that way. There is no hiding place." The mere fact that their social service records with their name and address can be handed over could make the child more vulnerable by being withdrawn from essential help. That is the case, and the Minister must not assume otherwise.
It is similarly unrealistic to postulate that social workers should not condone poll tax avoidance. As I said, this is not a charter for evasion or avoidance, but the fact is that social workers have a legal obligation to their clients, certainly to give confidentiality, to give primacy to the interests of vulnerable people and to make it clear to such people that they can be assisted only if there is a full transfer of confidential and private information.
A problem can arise, because some people will be dependent upon adults who are liable for payment. It may be argued that there is a borderline in the case of mental handicap. I do not say that this was not debated, because it was. The Government moved a little way in the right direction, but nowhere near enough. The initial uncertainties about the liability to pay will be compounded by the exemptions of handicapped people, as some social workers have already discovered in Scotland. Where there is doubt in a family, because of the dependence of one adult upon another—there may be a borderline case because of mental handicap—that is a problem for the social services. It will not be a problem for the surveyor or the canvasser who knocks on the door and discovers who lives at a dwelling, but it is a further pressure on social service records.
My final example is a serious one. It concerns the fundamental instance where names and addresses form the sensitive information, which, of course, applies to adoption cases. Parliament has legislated to protect the confidentiality of adoption information, most recently in the Data Protection Act 1984. I believe that, legally and technically, social services departments are adoption agencies. Adoption regulations have been based upon a concept of absolute confidentiality, to protect the identity of the adopted child in his or her adoptive family.
As I have said, local authority social services departments are adoption agencies, but they will no longer be able to offer the unconditional guarantee of confidentiality of information conveyed to them unless the Bill is amended directly—which it will not be—or unless the regulations are amended and, as they are still in draft form, they could be. It is not too late, because the consultation period for the regulations is continuing. The adoption point must be one that concerns the Minister and her colleagues. If it does not, there is something sick at the heart of the Government. There can be no argument—even as a spin-off of pursuing the legislation for the poll tax—for upsetting the sensitive adoption arrangements of this country.
Given the range of legitimate information available for the poll tax registration officers —such as the electoral register, the marriage register, the rating and the rent records, the library cards and the entire gamut of local authority information—and the fact that the Government have excluded local authority employment records, police

records and names and addresses held by the Inland Revenue, it would be better if social services information were placed off limits unequivocally.
We may argue about local income tax, but we were told during the passing of the Bill that the Inland Revenue has in its records some 31 million names and addresses. We are talking only about names and addresses for the poll tax officer. That has nothing to do with income or privacy. Given that the Government have excluded those and given that many other legitimate sources of information are available, it would be a lot better if all social service records —names and addresses are part of the case work records—were unequivocally placed off limits.
The Government's approach is inconsistent. If evasion were the prime concern, the Government would naturally include all local authority employment records. It follows, however, that a quarter of the salaries of those local authority employees will be paid for by the poll tax. Therefore one would not expect evasion to be practised by those people. Such records are not accessible to the poll tax registration officer. The confidentiality of the records of the clients of social workers and the good neighbours of the community should not be breached.
If the Government persist in stressing that only sensitive information should be excluded, surely professional advice must have been given to the effect that names and addresses alone can, in many circumstances, form the sensitive information held by a local authority.
There is no case for allowing access even to the names and addresses on social work case files. The Minister may say that there is no such access, but we should remember that the names and addresses, the ages of the clients and the length of residence at a particular address are held on such case files. To breach the confidentiality of such files interferes with medical practice, and uses information that may have been kept secret from hostile family members. It uses information given by the public in potential child abuse cases. Those files provide information about people who may not be eligible to pay the poll tax anyway, such as those with a mental handicap.
Social work files also contain information about adoption case work. That that information may be the names and addresses only, but in the circumstance that I have outlined, those names and addresses may be so sensitive that they should not be used.
Given all the other information to which the poll tax registration officer has access, it is proper that social work information and records should be withheld just as police records and Inland Revenue information are to be withheld.

Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend the member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) must be congratulated, not for the first time, on his diligent and detailed work on the poll tax. I must also congratulate my hon. Friend on succeeding in getting the words "poll tax" on the Order Paper. I thought that it appeared on it all the time and I did not know that it was called anything else. What appeared on the Order Paper is largely due to the efforts of my hon. Friend. I had expected to see the phrase "Tory poll tax" on Order Paper. That is the next word to be included so that the phrase can be hung around the Government's neck.


Although debates at this time in the morning are sometimes seen as rather esoteric, to put it mildly, there is an opportunity for the Minister to do something useful. She could accept what my hon. Friend has said. There is a strong reason for doing so, not least the commitments given in the House of Lords. Those commitments are important.
If the Minister would care to say that she is disposed to amend the draft regulations as requested, it would cause me to shorten my comments and may cause her to shorten her contribution. This is an opportunity for the Minister to obtain a quiet headline for herself as one of the few Ministers during the night to make some progressive moves to change legislation. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a weird distinction in keeping social service records as the exception to the list that he read out. The Minister was a psychiatric social worker and she will know the importance of the confidentiality of records.
As the Minister will know, it is one of the jobs of a social worker of any type to tell a person who asks him about confidentiality what the limits of that confidentiality are. A client may come along to an office one day and say that he wants to talk to a social worker about something personal and important, but that he is worried about doing so until he knows the rules of confidentiality. The social worker will usually say that he will respect confidentiality unless it involves some threatened harm to other people. In such cases, social workers knew that they had a duty to override confidentiality if necessary.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, this will no longer be the only exception. The extension will mean that social workers will have to tell people that they are obliged by law to give information to the poll tax registration officer in certain circumstances. They would have no other option, if ordered to hand over the information. That is an abuse of confidentiality.
My hon. Friend's quotation of Lord Caithness in the House of Lords shows that the other place was anxious about this, to put it mildly. If it is recognised that names and addresses are sensitive information, it must be admitted that the length of stay at an address is sensitive, given the special nature of some social work clients.
My hon. Friend gave a number of important examples of this, to which I would add one or two others. He made the important link between the Health Service and the social services. Such links are many and varied. The Minister, with her special knowledge, will know that local authorities place social workers in regional secure units and secure hospitals. She will also know that many patients are released into the community, especially from regional secure units. So, giving out information about an address and the length of stay at it can have important consequences for a person returning to the community—and for the community itself.
Child abuse cases are also vulnerable in this respect. If we tell others about the "good neighbour", as my hon. Friend described him or her, or about a parent who talks about an abused child, that will help neither the social work agency nor the enforcement of the law. That is precisely what might turn away a parent from a social work agency he had approached.
My hon. Friend has made out a strong case. Changes that have resulted from various Acts, such as the Data

Protection Act 1984, are important, but there is no good reason for including social service records in information that can be used, and I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's plea that they be put off limits. I hope that the Minister will now rise and say that she will seek to do something about this.

The Parliamentary Under-Sectretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), whose contributon to these debates on local government and the community charge has been considerable. He referred to the hundreds of hours spent in Committee. I was not there, but I heard much about it. The debate has shown that, although the hon. Gentleman has chosen to retire from the front line, he still intends to harry us from the Back Benches. I look forward to many more exchanges with him in future.
A number of points were made; it is important to take this opportunity to set the record straight and to explain some of the details of community charge registration. As the hon. Gentleman said, the matter was not debated in Committee in the House, but it was given careful scrutiny in the House of Lords and was the subject of several commitments.
Under the new system, for the first time local services will be paid for by all the adults who benefit from them, with some important exceptions and exemptions. We must regard the community charge register in the context of the establishment of a community charge system generally, ensuring that as many people as possible are on the register. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments that it is a legal tax and must be collected. I accept that he is not seeking a charter for evasion. But this involves the compilation of community charges registers, so that people subject to the charge can be properly billed for it. This universal registration is at the very heart of the new system, and we must provide registration officers with a means of effectively doing this. One of the major disadvantages of the present rating system has been that, of 36 million people, a mere 18 million were paying rates. We must try to reach as many people as we properly can. The success of the new system in part lies in ensuring greater accountability.
The community charge register is, to all intents and purposes, a list of names and addresses—as is the telehone directory or the electoral roll. No system of local finance could manage without a list of those liable to contribute to it. The current system needs a list of ratepayers. By contrast, to keep the matter in proportion, under the system apparently favoured by the Labour party there would have to be a list of owners of property and a list of people subject to local income tax. The information needed for that list would need to contain much more in the way of personal details than anything that we propose for the community charge.
I shall deal in a moment with the hon. Gentleman's specific points about social services. As he rightly says, I spent 10 years working as a social worker, so I am aware of the issues.

Mr. Rooker: That is what this debate is all about.

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, but it is important to put it in context. I take the opportunity to clarify and expand how


the register will work, because it is important not to stir up paranoia about the amount of information that will be passed on. Social workers should be able to inform their clients of the true state of events, and not inflame and exacerbate needless anxiety or uncertainty.

Mr. Soley: The Minister says that she wants to put the matter in context. She has just talked about alternatives, two of which are already well dealt with. Rate collection is a well-established procedure that is well known to everyone. There is no reason why the local income tax should not be collected by the Inland Revenue.

Mrs. Bottomley: There is agreement that the present system of rates is not an adequate way to continue to finance local government, but this would be a way of making available far more information.
The registration officers will be under a duty to supply every person whose name appears on the register with a copy of his entry. Any person who feels that he should not be on the register, or wishes to challenge his entry, will be able to appeal to a valuation and community charge tribunal. Those tribunals will be similar to the current local valuation courts, which have an admirable record of informality in their procedures. We are providing for appeals to be made by written representations for those who prefer that approach.
As well as the register, there will be an extract for public inspection, because it is important that people should have confidence in the new system. They should be able to see for themselves that the registration has been properly carried out. But we are providing safeguards. The public extract will show only the addresses, surnames and initials. Anyone who fears that inclusion in it would lead to the threat of physical violence will be able to ask to be omitted from it.
The registration officer will have no power to sell or supply the extract to anyone. It will be available only for inspection. There is a specific prohibition against supplying a copy of the register. Anyone who feels under a threat of violence can ask for his name to be omitted from the register, and I fully recognise that some social service claimants may wish to avail themselves of that opportunity. Therefore, it is important to spell out the right that is available.
Finally, before turning in detail to some of the other points raised, I should like to say that there is no reason why anyone should seek to avoid registration on the grounds of hardship. The community charge system will reflect people's ability to pay. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr knows, rebates of up to 80 per cent. will be available and people receiving income support will have included in their benefit an amount to reflect the fact that they have to pay the charge. The figures announced in October by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security mean that people on income support are fully protected for community charges well above the national average on current spending.
The information that will be available to community charges registration officers is the crucial issue. There have been a number of misleading stories in the press recently and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be content if I take the opportunity to put the record straight on that matter. I understand that a local authority association recently made available to the press a list of 50 questions

that it argued registration officers would be able to ask about people's circumstances. I t said that failure to answer some of them could lead to imprisonment.
That report has no official status whatsoever. It does not form part of any official guidance from the Department to local authorities. I shall deal in a moment with the questions that registration officers need to ask., but I should like to make one point absolutely clear at the: outset. There is no provision in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, or in any regulations that we shall make: under it, that will allow anyone to be imprisoned for refusing to give information. That is an area where social services clients may well feel particularly vulnerable.
The Act provides for financial penalties to be imposed by registration officers if people do not reasonably provide information which is within their possession and which the officer needs for the purposes of doing his job. It also provides that, when a court has granted an authority a liability order against someone who has failed to pay his community charge, that person may be fined if he refuses to provide information to the authority or deliberately gives false information. There is no provision, however, for imprisonment in either case.
The information-gathering powers of the registration officer's job are very simply described. He has to compile the community charges register in each charging authority. To do that, he needs surprisingly little information. Recent descriptions of the registration process as a snooper's charter, or the spurious reports to which I referred earlier of the list of 50 questions are, as those who perpetrated them I hope know, simply fiction. In the vast majority of cases, all the registration officer needs to know about someone is his name and address and the date on which he became resident in the area. In special cases only, the registration officer may need to know more than that.
However, he has to register all adults. If he is compiling a register that will cover a financial year, he will need to know the date of birth of people who will be 18 in that year. If a person is a student, the registration officer will need to know that fact so that he or she is given the special 80 per cent. student relief from that charge. If the person is exempt from the charge, the registration officer will need to know the details. I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will accept that. for someone to benefit from the exemption to which he or she is entitled, it is necessary for the registration officer to be able to ask for information.
That will on occasion mean asking people who have had the misfortune to be severely mentally handicapped about their condition, but it is wrong to frighten and alarm people by exaggerating the numbers of questions involved. It is certainly not, as I shall explain in more detail, part of the information to be available from the social services. In some cases, there may be one or two additional questions to answer, but, for the vast majority of people, the only requirement is to supply their names and addresses.
Registration officers will have access to a variety of sources of information, but, irrespective of the number of sources available to them, they have no right to any information that is not required for the purposes of fulfilling their statutory duties. I make no apology for repeating again that this means only finding out people's names and addresses—not even their ages, as was suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It is essential to emphasise that fundamental point.


The basic source of information about anyone who is subject to the community charge is the person himself. Where a person is requested to supply information by a registration officer, there will be no need to seek that information from any other source. In order to prepare, however, for the initial community charge canvass next spring, registration officers may wish to draw on information from sources already available to them in order to provide a starting point for the canvass. That information will include names and addresses of people who are already known to the local authority.
People's names and addresses may be held by a local authority for a variety of purposes. The housing department will have a list of council tenants. The treasurer's department will have a list of the names and addresses of ratepayers. That is the kind of basic raw material which will enable the registration officer to produce a starting point for the canvass.

Mr. Rooker: Why is the local authority personnel department exempt? Who asked for the amendment that no employment records should be used? That was not requested during the passage of the Bill. Why did the Government put it in?

Mrs. Bottomley: The Government are at pains to ensure that all information is reasonably available from local sources of information. It was decided that information should not come from the Inland Revenue. I cannot at this moment tell the hon. Gentleman where the commitment first arose.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Lady misunderstands me. I am talking about the local authority as an employer. Local authorities are among the biggest employers in the country. In fact, in Birmingham the biggest employer is the local authority. That means that the poll tax registration officer will not have access to all the information available to the local authority because he does not have access to the names and addresses of the people employed by the authority. Why is that a no-go area for the poll tax registration officer? Who asked for that amendment? it was not asked for during the passage of the Bill.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman appears to be pursuing an argument that I do not wish to follow. An employee of the local authority might believe that employment information was sensitive. I will let the hon. Gentleman know how that amendment arose, but he should appreciate it for what it is instead of challenging it.
The registration officer will know the addresses of the properties that he is going to canvass, and he will know in a good many cases the names of the people he expects to find resident there. He will then be able to send to those addresses requests for the information that he needs to compile the register.
Although the registration officer will be an officer of the charging authority, he is, legally, quite separate from it, and his position as an officer of the authority does not in itself give him the right simply to examine all the documents in the council offices. His right to obtain information from his own local authority, or from any other public body, is closely circumscribed. He has no right to any information which he does not need for the purposes of carrying out his statutory functions or to any

information which an authority obtained by virtue of it being a member of a police authority; he has no right to any information which an authority obtained by virtue of its being an employer; and, finally, he has no right to any information except names and addresses, and dates of residence.
The hon. Member asked whether this meets the Government's commitment, referred to in the Lords, to deny registration officers access to sensitive records kept in local authority social services departments. I argue strongly that it does. If a local authority receives a request from its own, or any other, registration officer for information about names and addresses, it may collect that information from a number of sources, including the social services department. However, all the authority is required to pass on is a list of names, addresses and dates. There is no reason why the registration officer should be able to tell from such a list why the person's name and address happen to be known to the authority. He may be a council tenant. He may be a ratepayer. He may have a library ticket. It will certainly not be possible to deduce that he is the subject of a social services department case file.
Although the registration officer can require information from the social services department, he does not then reveal from where he received his information. It is not identified as coming from the social services department.

Mr. Soley: Two matters are troubling my hon. Friend and me. First, if a person attends an AIDS clinic—which will encompass a limited number of people—and sees a social worker there, it is not known whether his or her name, together with those of the other patients, will be mixed up with the names of all the others dealing with the social services. One cannot be sure that that will not happen, particularly if there is a joint health and social services department.
Secondly, what is the social worker to say to the individual, who may be suffering from AIDS or be the victim of child abuse, about onfidentiality—given that the official is obliged to tell them, "I am bound in certain circumstances to pass your name and address to the poll tax registration officer"?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman makes again, strongly, a point he has already made. I hear what he says, and I hope that he hears my response.
The registration officer requires names and addresses, but it will not be possible to identify the source of that information. The social worker may make it clear that an individual's name and address will be passed on, but also that sensitive information will not. The commitment that such information will not be made available was specifically given to the House of Lords.
I make it clear that inferences, moral or otherwise, should not be drawn about an individual registered with a social services department. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to imply that, somehow, a stigma is automatically attached to one's name being held on a social services record. The hon. Gentleman referred to examples where there may be sensitivity, but that reveals a blinkered attitude to the work of social services departments. An individual may be known because he or she is an adopting parent, because they have been to an AIDS clinic, because they are a foster parent, or because they use the meals on wheels service. There are any number


of reasons why a person's name may be known. It is ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that it leads to any stigma, and to do so merely exacerbates precisely the problem that the hon. Gentleman and I hope to challenge.
The question of information from social services records was debated at length during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1987, both in this House and in another place. This House decided that the safeguards the Act provided were sufficient to ensure that no community charge registration officer could demand sensitive information from social services departments. The regulations we propose making under the Act carry out the Government's commitment in that respect.
I do not accept that names and addresses are sensitive information. It is in everybody's interest to ensure that community charges registers are as complete and as accurate as possible. We have provided registration officers with the powers that they need to carry out their essential functions, while ensuring that individuals' rights are fully protected.

Mr. Rooker: We shall return to that point when we see the regulations in due course. Meanwhile, will the Minister explain why there is no mention on page 11 of the Government leaflet published last week of sensitive social services records? Why were they not highlighted, to fulfil the specific promise made to the House of Lords?

Mrs. Bottomley: I shall deal with the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers shortly, but first I shall reply to his points about the Data Protection Act 1984.
The Department keeps closely in touch with the data protection registrar, who is content with our proposals. The information provided to community charges registration officers falls within data protection principles. Therefore, they will register with the registrar as data users, and we are giving them advice on the terms of their applications. The sources of information available to community charge registration officers will be fully disclosed to the registrar.
The hon. Gentleman made reference to the excellent document, "You and the Community Charge". I am delighted that he is already busy studying it, and I hope that he will act as an example to others. It is one of many examples of information, literature or guidance notes that we are producing to ensure that people are in no uncertainty. It is extremely important for them to study it too.
The hon. Gentleman referred to page 2 as though it were an enormous triumph constantly to point the contrast between the terms "community charge" and "poll tax". He is full of glee about having secured a debate using the words "poll tax". I should have thought that after 200 hours of debate in Committee even the hon. Gentleman would realise that no one is able to vote simply because his or her name appears on the community charges registration list. I find it extraordinary that someone so talented in other respects should seem so blinkered in this one.
As the hon. Gentleman says, the sort of anxiety felt by most people is largely about such matters as information

on criminal records. As an ex-social worker, I bitterly resent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that being known to a social services department is somehow analogous to having a police record. That is deplorable and intolerable, and I am at great pains to make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's name and address being known to a local authority. We put considerable care into the publication, and we wanted to allay anxiety on certain fronts. Certainly the subject of the police is generally thought to cause concern, but the idea that the overwhelming majority of the public—unless the hon. Gentleman gets his way—will be deeply distressed seems to me to be scaremongering and to cause particular difficulties.

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not interrupt the Minister when she alleged that I had said something that I did not say. I have never made the connection between police records and social service files. I only asked why there was no reference to the sensitivity of social work case records being excluded, as was given to the House of Lords.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a long intervention in the guise of a point of order.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman referred to page 11 of the booklet, which refers to sensitive information that is not available, such as comprehensive records held by police authorities. He is making the analogy, and I stand by that. Anyone who is concerned about the subject need only turn back a page to see that, according to page 10,
The register will contain only the information needed to enable local authorities to ask the right people for the right community charges at the right time.
What is required from local authority records are the names and addresses of the people concerned.
I would much prefer it if the hon. Gentleman, having raised an important subject, now accepted our assurances that sensitive information will not be made available; even ages will not be made available. It will not be possible to identify where the information came from. Having a full and effective register is a key aspect in providing for the community charge. It is the secret to more effective and accountable local government, and a much fairer system of financing it. The Department has taken great steps to explain the principle, and as the hon. Gentleman said, the consultation on the regulations continues until a bit later this month.
It is an indication of the seriousness and commitment with which we all take on the task of compiling these registers to ensure that they are done effectively and competently that there is a proper appeals mechanism and that the public understand that, if there is any likelihood that a person may be vulnerable to threats of violence, that person can ask for his name to be removed.
I hope that the debate will have reassured people and clarified the matter properly.

Orders of the Day — Church Buildings

Mr. Robert Key: The privilege of representing the city of Salisbury falls to me. Salisbury was re-established as a cathedral city in the year 1220. By 1275, it had sent its first representative to Westminster. I am deeply privileged to represent that fine cathedral city, in which I was brought up as a child. I attended school in the cathedral close.
Salisbury cathedral's spire has been repaired twice during my lifetime—round about 1950, and now. I have also witnessed dramatic changes in tourism and security. I well remember that, on my 10th birthday, the librarian of Salisbury cathedral took me to the cathedral library and said that she intended to give me a birthday treat. She put into my hands the original Magna Carta. It had a profound effect thereafter on my political thinking. In today's atmosphere of security, it is inconceivable that that could happen now.
I have also watched the buildings in the cathedral close develop from genteel tattiness into a millionaires' row. I live outside Salisbury, in the parish of South Newton, with its typical solid and undistinguished Victorian Gothic church that is much loved by the community. One of my forebears was a London entrepreneur who helped to establish what I can only describe as a chain of Congregational churches across London. I am particularly pleased, therefore, that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is here. I look forward to hearing what he, with his non conformist faith, has to say.
The Church of England has been a good steward of its heritage. Ecclesiastical exemption, which raises so much heat in debate—from listed buildings consent to certain planning controls—has been justified. The revised Care of Cathedrals Measure that was debated recently by the General Synod of the Church of England is very welcome. It maintains the traditional independence that is so jealously guarded by deans and chapters of cathedrals, who believe that cathedrals are liturgically alive and spiritual centres, not just heritage monuments. Under the new measure, cathedral chapters will be unable to make any changes to structures or furnishings without the approval of the local fabric committees and a national fabric commission.
The Government already help the parish churches. On 29 November 1988, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether she agreed that cathedrals should be eligible for similar restoration grants. I regret that I have yet to convince her. The Select Committee on the Environment's report on historic buildings and ancient monuments, dated 21 January 1987, also failed to convince the Government. It recommended that the major importance of cathedral buildings, and the need to ensure their conservation, justified their eligibility for grant from public funds from now on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) will no doubt argue that cathedrals want to be independent, that they can look after themselves and that the Christian community must do more to help them. On the last point, the 16th report of the Central Stipends Authority of the Church of England tells us that, between 1978 and 1988, current giving by individuals has doubled,

that income from glebe land—well managed at last—is up by 50 per cent. and that grants from the Church Commissioners are down by a third.
What is the independence that the cathedrals crave, and can they continue to look after themselves while the world and his wife troop through our churches and cathedrals on the tourist treadmill—that is what it is rapidly becoming—as we fail to adjust to the needs and the very profitable aspirations of their visitors? The Church of England has 16,700 churches, 12,000 of which are statutorily listed and 2,675 grade 1 buildings. There are more listed churches attracting more visitors than all National Trust properties and ancient monuments put together.
Churches and cathedrals are primarily places of Christian worship at the heart of European civilisation—hence the need for independence, expressed as ecclesiastic exemption—but they are also the nation's top tourist attraction, money spinners for their local communities and major tax gatherers for the Treasury. Only last week my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), the Minister with responsibilities for tourism, when interviewed by TVS outside Winchester cathedral, generously acknowledged that there was a problem with cathedral finance that the Government must look at.

Mr. Clive Soley: Sometimes I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but at other times I am a little worried. I am not sure whether the Church would wish to be known as a top tourist attraction in terms of bringing in money. That is not a concept which the Church usually puts around. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is that many other countries fund their churches extremely well, often through local authorities, while our Government are still caught in the stupid trap of private affluence for some and public squalor for all?

Mr. Key: I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's last point about funding. I must point out that the last thing that we want is for the Church of England to follow the French example, which has sterilised churches completely, whether they are financed by local authorities or by the state.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about churches being top tourist attractions, one important point about the Mappa Mundi controversy in Hereford is that churches should be maximising their tourist profits. They have been told to market themselves better, and they have to acknowledge that they are a top tourist attraction. If they were not a top tourist attraction, life would be much easier for them, as they would not have to provide so many facilities.
Why should the Government help cathedrals? Have they not appealed successfully in the past? But cathedrals have not appealed successfully in the past. They have appealed every 20 years or so and they are successful only when they are appealing to repair or replace a particular structure such as a spire, a vault or roof timbers. Consequently, the less glamorous parts of the buildings are lucky to get even routine maintenance. Suddenly, those parts are in danger of collapsing and become the subject of yet another appeal. I estimate that our cathedrals are appealing for about £50 million at present. In Salisbury, we are appealing for £6·5 million and we have raised half that sum.


Companies, individuals and trusts have thousands of competing claims. The pork barrel is not bottomless and our cathedrals cannot plan sensible programmes of fabric restoration on the scale necessary. They have not been able to do so for years. The advantages would be enormous in terms of sensible budgeting by the cathedrals and in terms of the craftsmen required to apply skills which have existed in Britain for 1,000 years, but which often have to be revived for a particular cathedral. However after the work is completed, the craftsmen are often laid off and their skills may not be used again for a long time.
The historic background to the financing of Church buildings is important. Each cathedral is a unique case with different pressures on the deans and chapters, who are not as happy as they might be about the cathedrals' future.
Henry VIII looked for cash from the monastic foundations, and that left its mark on the cathedrals. If cathedrals were part of a monastic foundation, suddenly all their endowments were removed. Winchester suffered, but Salisbury, which was not a monastic foundation, was comparatively well off.
Later on, the Fund for the Augmentation of Livings and Impoverished Clergy, more commonly called Queen Anne's bounty, was established in 1704 from the first fruits and tenths of ecclesiastical benefits. That was augmented by parliamentary grants, and maintained a completely separate existence until 1948 when it was taken over by the Church Commissioners.
The most dramatic effect on cathedrals' finances was the nationalisation of the 19th century, when the then Ecclesiastical Commission told all cathedrals, deans and chapters that they must surrender all lands and properties lying outside the immediate bounds of the cathedral in order to found the Church Commissioners. The intention was to aid the efficiency and correct the imbalance of wealth within the Church of England. The dean and chapter of Durham refused to fall into line and, consequently, Durham is well off today and its figures look good. I wonder why other cathedrals were so eager to capitulate to state blackmail in the 19th century.
The cathedrals have been disadvantaged recently in a little known deal involving the community charge and churches. I recently tabled a parliamentary question to ask what steps the Church Commissioners would be taking to assist the churches in adjusting to the introduction of the community charge. The reply was that the Commissioners were closely consulting dioceses about what changes would be desirable in the stipends arangements of the clergy when they and their spouses become liable to pay a personal community charge in 1990. Because most of the clergy have hitherto lived in their accommodation free of rates, the Commissioners hope to make substantial additional sums available for stipends in 1990 to reflect the extra costs that will fall on them.
A bargain has been struck whereby the Government will give an extra grant to churches for the maintenance of fabric, which will be comparable to the amount of community charge raised from the clergy. There will be state aid for churches in use in excess of £3 million, administered by English Heritage on behalf of the Government. The problem is that the "churches in use" programme is for churches that are architecturally distinguished. Therefore, I fear that money allocated will be distorted towards the south-east, where there are more

churches of architectural value. That will disadvantage parish churches in virtually all our industrial centres, as well as the nonconformist churches.
It is wrong to think that the only churches that have a problem with funding for fabric restoration are churches in the Church of England. Many larger 19th century churches and chapels belonging to other branches of the Christian faith are in serious deficit as a result of declining membership, as in the Church of England, and an almost total lack of endowment. They need to be considered.
The Government will increase the proportion of money allocated to the redundant churches fund from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of its total. Administrative offices, for example diocesan offices and the Church Commissioners' offices, will be exempt from non-domestic rates, and church halls will not be subject to rates, even if they make additional money from concerts and so on. Therefore, with the exception of the changes in provision for salaried officers of each cathedral, because the Church Commissioners already pay certain stipends, those moneys will not apply to cathedrals. They will again lose, and only selected parish churches will gain under the deal.
During the recent Hereford Mappa Mundi controversy, I was incensed, although not surprised, to hear slick advertising and marketing men saying that money would flood in if the cathedrals "marketed themselves properly". They should talk to the tourist industry about the futility of taking people to cathedrals with inadequate facilities, poor access and little parking.
We know that to our cost in Salisbury, where the close is what I would describe as a slum of a parking lot. Our medieval gates are damaged by commercial traffic to the point of danger and possible closure. Why do we not do something about that? The dean and chapter are doing their best, but we do not do much about it because it is difficult to persuade the guardians of the heritage that cathedrals are not ruins but living organisms. Recently, well-thought-out plans to construct a visitors' centre at Salisbury were described by the Royal Fine Art Commission as "unscholarly and destructive".
The pressure for vehicular access, parking and environmental protection can be met at Salisbury only by the construction of a new gateway in the southern side of the close—a section of wall rebuilt by the Victorians. No other option has been suggested, yet the plan is being strongly opposed by English Heritage.
We need a more constructive partnership between the guardians of the heritage and the deans and chapters, who are doing their best to maximise revenue but are frustrated at almost every turn. Even when cathedrals try to maximise their revenue, they are threatened by state quangos. What a contrast with our secular heritage, which can afford a gung-ho approach to life—and good luck to it.
In a glossy publication recently sent to all hon. Members called "The Arts in Britain", published by the Office of Arts and Libraries, the chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the noble Lord Charteris of Amisfield, was asked about the establishment of his quango. He said:
It was a general feeling that too many works of art were leaving the country and house after house was falling into disrepair and going down the drain. And Parliament said this must not happen again.
So they set up this fund under independent trustees, so that it is totally divorced from politics. It will take off the


shoulders of ministers or departments the difficult political question of deciding whether or not you do save houses like Mentmore…
We started off with £12·4 m and we were told it was to be used to give financial assistance for the acquisition and maintenance of land, buildings or objects of historical or other interest to the heritage. Period!
We could invest this money more or less as we wished. We didn't just have to keep it in Treasury bonds. We could put a certain proportion of it abroad, in Japan or Australia or wherever we thought right…
The government have, in fact, treated us extremely well. You never know what you're going to get until you get it but last year they gave us £20 m, just like that, and a couple of years before they gave us £25 m to look after the three great houses, Kedleston, Nostell Priory and Weston Park. And the year before they gave us £10 m. They have supported us very well indeed.
I would argue that the country house, with its contents, with its park with, if you like, the world of letters and politics of the people who've lived in it, is Britain's supreme contribution to civilisation. Therefore it's absolutely part of our heritage and we're justified in spending a hell of a lot of money on it. The money goes not only on buying the country house, and buying its contents, but above all on endowing it. In other words, creating a situation where its future is secured for all time. That's a very expensive business.
He further said:
Heritage is in the eye of the beholder like beauty, in a sense. Our great Cathedrals must be part of our heritage, but for some people a whelk stall could be, because it is part of our life.
Whelk stalls are eligible for state help, but cathedrals are not. More people visit cathedrals and churches than all the National Trust properties and monuments put together. More people go to church on Sundays than go to football matches on Saturdays. Why is there discrimination against churches?
Nobody wants a French solution to our problems, whereby the state takes over cathedrals and turns them into museums. Unlike France, we are not a secular state, so how can the Government justify their policy for cathedrals?
In effect, a Conservative Government are nationalising the secular heritage, while cathedrals—which, because we have a state religion, are in effect nationalised—are starved of capital investment and certainly receive no grants under the industry Acts. Perhaps I should take up the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle. Given the vast tourist grants that are available, perhaps we should ensure that there is something worth while for the tourists to see.
The time has come to consider two schemes, which may be alternatives. The first is to extend to cathedrals the existing pound-for-pound funding that is available for listed parish churches. The second, which is more radical, is to establish a new endowment fund along the lines of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Neither Henry VIII nor Queen Anne, neither the 19th-century reformers nor the reorganisation of 1948, got it right. The present reforming and radical Government are the most likely for a long time to succeed where others have failed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carry that message to her colleagues and set about the task with her customary vigour and enthusiasm.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) raised this subject and introduced it so well. I share much of his concern about cathedral heritage and believe that the time has passed when it is reasonable to exclude cathedrals from the pattern of state aid that has been built up for historic buildings. As the hon. Gentleman explained, cathedrals vary in the degree of endowment that they enjoy and the problems that they face.
A move towards state help for some cathedrals must be managed with some care—first, so that it is clearly related to need and, secondly, so that it does not entirely pre-empt resources on which there are other important claims, not least parish churches, and, as I shall argue, buildings of denominations other than the Church of England. If I focus on those, it is because I think that no other hon. Member will do so.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) is present. I am sure that, in the course of this short debate, we shall have other opportunities to examine the position of cathedrals which, as in the case of Hereford cathedral, has been further complicated by the presence in that cathedral, as in so many, of an item of major national interest, the Mappa Mundi. There is distinct concern that such a thing should be able to remain in a place where it has been for so long and where it is part of the local and national heritage. That is a separate claim on the public purse and public support. An object of such importance should not leave this country. In the case of Hereford, it can and should be kept in the place in which it has been for so long.
I direct the Minister's attention to a different part of the heritage of buildings, and that is Nonconformist chapels and meeting houses which have languished under a cloud for many years. I sometimes think that Nonconformists have an inferiority complex about their own buildings. That is beginning to be dispelled as more and more writers, architectural historians and campaigners begin to focus attention on this heritage of buildings. It is getting wider and wider publicity. Marcus Binney, writing in The Independent colour supplement a couple of weeks ago, said:
No aspect of English architecture has been so consistently undervalued as the Nonconformist chapel … In most books, ecclesiastical architecture since the Reformation is discussed solely in terms of the Church of England … Yet chapels and meeting-houses form an alternative history of church architecture over the past 300 years, unparalleled in the rest of Europe.
There is significance in that 300 years. Next year is the 300th anniversary of the Toleration Act, from which dates the building of most legally built chapels. There are obviously a few from the occasional periods before that, when our turbulent history gave a brief opportunity for Nonconformists to build. It is from 1689 onwards, however, that building really began. For example, the late 17th century Unitarian chapel at Macclesfield records itself as the chapel of William and Mary's loyal dissenting subjects. In the immediate aftermath of celebrating the Glorious Revolution, we should spare a little time next year to celebrate the 300 years since the Toleration Act. What better way to do that than to give some greater recognition to the quality and importance of some of those buildings.


Importance resides in exteriors and interiors. Many chapels are important features of the townscape and landscape, but many also have largely undisturbed interiors that show a different tradition and history of worship, and do so in a way that, in some cases, is much less dramatically affected by the Victorian restoration than was the case with much of the heritage of the Church of England.
Nonconformity is affected by financial problems that have already been described in relation to the Church of England, but writ large. Quite a number of the most historically important chapels are those of the smallest denominations—the Unitarians, the Society of Friends, even smaller denominations such as the Countess of Huntingdon Connexion and even, in one case, a virtually defunct denomination—defunct for religious reasons—the Catholic Apostolic Church, a millennial sect which has run out of ordained apostles, but which had a remarkable collection of buildings. Larger denominations had an enormous proliferation of buildings arising from what one might call the free market in Nonconformity, which ran through the 19th century, when competition was the order of the day. Different groups of Presbyterians and Methodists built on a massive scale. Their latter-day successors simply cannot use that number of buildings.
Some Nonconformist buildings are in the wrong place for the congregations they serve. Others are thought nowadays not to meet the needs of a modern worshipping congregation. Not all problems are problems of decline. Some of the buildings that are most threatened are those to which a lively and active congregation wants for its own reasons to make changes. They may not always appreciate the value of their own building, or the possibility that they could he helped to retain it instead of seeking the developers' cheque book as a means of meeting their growing needs or difficulties. That is a temptation to which many Nonconformist congregations have been subjected over the years. Developers have said, "I will build you a new chapel if we can have a shopping centre on this site." As a result, we have lost important 18th and 19th century buildings.
The problems are writ large because Nonconformists are not cushioned by the Church Commissioners; they do not have the same degree of help with the stipends of their clergy as the Church of England and congregations have to find their share of the costs of paying the clergy without the degree of help from endowment. That creates more serious problems in maintaining buildings. Add to that the lack of recognition—which extends to local authorities and sometimes even to the Department's inspectorates and to Ministers themselves—and one begins to realise how serious the problems are.
A few months ago we had a Minister's decision on a demolition proposal for a chapel in Blyth, Northumberland in which one of the arguments adduced in favour of giving consent to demolition was that there was no local opposition. The whole purpose of ministerial consent being required for the demolition of historic buildings is that the local community does not always realise the importance of a particular building. That degree of lack of recognition is very worrying.
Let us consider the financial implications of Government help for the Churches. Matters have improved a little, thanks to English Heritage, which has certainly recognised some of the issues to which I have referred. It has directed attention towards the architectural

and historical importance of Nonconformist buildings and has been giving grants to them. The vast majority of Nonconformist buildings are listed grade 2 rather than grade 1 or grade 2 starred and many worthwhile buildings are not listed at all. Some buildings have been promoted in their listing and then grant-aided or the two operations may have taken place at once. It is a matter of concern that many valuable Nonconformist buildings do not appear at the moment to be eligible for help, and I hope that the Minister and English Heritage will consider that.
We must then consider the question of the community charge money, to which that question is related. The Nonconformists are affected as dramatically as anybody by the imposition of the poll tax. They have to raise the stipends of their clergy to meet the fact that the clergy and their wives will be liable to pay the poll tax. If the resources that the Government are putting into the churches as compensation are not directed with equal force towards Nonconformists, they will experience much greater difficulties, as they lack the Church Commissioners' help. The Minister must examine how the money is to be channelled to help the Nonconformist churches with their special problems.
One of the ways that has been suggested to English Heritage for using some of the poll tax money by Marcus Binney, in the article that I cited and in others, brings up another aspect of the problem. He has suggested that the money should be used to establish a redundant chapels fund to parallel the redundant churches fund. Whether it comes from those resources or not—and there are questions to be raised on that—I hope that the Minister and English Heritage will consider that suggestion.
Over the years, it has been argued that the Church of England contributes to a redundant churches fund and therefore the Government can make their contribution; it is a partnership. It is argued that the Nonconformists could have the same if only they put in the sort of money that the Church of England is putting in. It is just not feasible to expect the Nonconformist Churches—under the present pressures—to set tip a redundant chapels fund on that sort of basis. They will need significantly more help. Yet such a fund is clearly needed. There are a number of extremely valuable chapels for which no other resources have been found.
It is my wish that the vast majority of historically valuable Nonconfirmist chapels will continue in religious use—in some cases perhaps used by other religious groups or denominations and in some cases put to other uses—and that only a very small minority will be treated as redundant chapels, preserved as they are because of their distinctive character. Clearly, however, there still are some chapels to which that will apply.
We are starting to lose whole categories of buildings. The way things are going now it will not be long before we have few remaining examples of the enormous city centre galleried chapel. It is perhaps the most difficult to maintain. There are also several isolated rural chapels of the 17th and early 18th centuries which are candidates for a redundant chapels fund. An initiative must be taken to get such a fund under way.
The Minister is entitled to ask; what about ecclesiastical exemption? Those of us who are concerned about chapels as buildings of architectural value are entitled to ask the same. Lord Skelmersdale made his statement in 1986 and since then there has been no progress on Nonconformist chapels. The position of the Church of England is


different. There is a faculty system. Criticisms can be made of it and there are many arguments about bringing it up to date and embracing the cathedrals within it or something like it, but there is simply nothing parallel in Nonconformity.
It is not reasonable to say that we need not have any involvement with planning permission because there is an alternative system. There is none. That is understandable because many Nonconformist denominations are not centrally controlled or directed, and they take a pride in that. For example, the Congregational Federation, which exists to continue the Congregational tradition, did not even want to join the United Reformed Church because it did not want a centrally directed organisation. It is difficult for such a body to establish a faculty system like that of the Church of England. Some system must be developed or we need to have planning permission for interior changes to historic Nonconformist buildings. Moreover, three years after Lord Skelmersdale's statement, we do not know what is meant by "significant" external change, let alone internal alteration. If there is no control over internal alteration, interiors of particular value will disappear. There are only few examples left of important kinds of chapel interior.
As a result of the growing interest in these buildings several people got together—I was involved in this—and started a chapels society to challenge people about the importance of these buildings and help them take care of them. We would be willing to help in the establishment of some mechanism under which advice is channelled to congregations about the value of their buildings. We cannot let things stand still on ecclesiastical exemption. If particular denominations can come up with a practical alternative, that would be acceptable. Where they cannot or do not want to come up with a system of their own, we must look at some other way of ensuring that state aid for the maintenance of historic buildings is matched by some concern for the protection of their integrity.
Non-conformity has a wonderful heritage of buildings, which are architecturally distinct, telling their own history. In many cases they are the people's buildings, raised with substantial individual and community effort. We risk losing some of the best examples and in some cases all examples of a type. As we come to celebrate 300 years since we were legally allowed to erect such buildings, we should give them more attention. It is right that there should be more state aid for them.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and congratulate him on choosing this subject and on sitting through the silent watches of the night so that this opportunity would not be missed. What more appropriate time than the eve of Christmas to talk about the future of our great religious buildings? My hon. Friend has also done me a signal service, Sir, and perhaps you, because I had expressed the hope that we might have an Adjournment debate on this on Thursday, and because of your kindness in calling me now, another hon. Member will have a chance to raise a subject instead.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) because he has highlighted a problem facing Non-conformist Churches,

with a wealth and breadth of knowledge from a long interest which has obviously given enormous benefit to the House. I hope that the Minister listened extremely carefully to what he had to say.
My involvement in this subject goes back as long as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, I remember as a small boy being taken for the first time to Lincoln cathedral and there falling in love with a great building. I still regard that as the greatest building in Europe, but that is a degree of partisanship for which I hope the House will forgive me.
One of the first things I did when I came to the House was to introduce a Historic Churches Preservation Bill with all-party support. It is good to remind ourselves that, as recently as the early 1970s, there was fierce resistance from Government to the idea of state aid for churches. It was only because of that campaign—in which I believe my Bill played a part—that a committee was set up by Lord Rippon, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, and the then Bishop of Rochester, Dr. David Say, and a scheme for state aid was worked out, always with all-party accord. Speaking as the chairman of the all-party arts and heritage group, I believe that it is important that we keep these issues outside the realms of party politics.
I am glad to be able to put on record the fact that we have had significant and signal contributions from Secretaries of State of both parties during the time that I have been involved in this campaign. Without casting any aspersions on the others, I shall single out one or two. First of all, there was the late Anthony Crosland, who brought a deep and passionate concern to his role as Secretary of State for the Environment when it came to the preservation of our heritage. Then there was my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), under whose auspices the Historic Buildings Council—on which I was privileged to sit—was transformed into the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, now generally referred to as English Heritage.
It is therefore a great pleasure to see someone with as sensitive an appreciation of beautiful things as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), who now carries ministerial responsibility for these matters within the Department of the Environment. I hope that she will persuade our right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State that his love for and proficiency in the art of water-colour painting, which depends so much on capturing the beauty of historic buildings, can and should be complemented by a determination to continue to provide the necessary funds for their upkeep.
I could talk at length about the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission on which I sat, about the long arguments that we had about precisely how ecclesiastical exemption should be handled and about the general problem as compared with that in France. However, I shall just make two or three brief points before concentrating on cathedrals.
First of all, it is important to place on record the fact that we now have a system that works with regard to state aid for churches, both those of the established Church and those of other denominations. They are all eligible for state aid, and over the years they have received state aid, just as they have received aid from the Historic Churches Preservation Trust, of which I happen to be a trustee. We


give about £250,000 or more each year to churches of all denominations. That money is given and bequeathed by ordinary people up and down the country.
I am not suggesting that we should be complacent, and I am certainly not seeking to undermine or weaken the powerful argument, which I wholly support, of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I merely say that the principle in relation to churches was conceded some time ago. The money is there and, although we can always do with more, many of our churches have been significantly helped.
We can also make the point that this country is much better in this respect than France, which is a country that I dearly love and which has a wealth of historic churches. However, because of historic accidents or incidents in France, all fabric of the churches is vested in the state, and that has had a damaging effect. It has taken away the feelings of local pride and patriotism, if I may put it in that way, and people do not feel that local sense of identity and responsibility.
I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I say that you have magnificently capitalised on that sense of responsibility with our appeal for St. Margaret's church, Westminster. Under your dynamic leadership, we raised £1 million in just over a year. Without wishing to drag you into any political controversy—this is not a controversial subject— I am sure that you will agree that it is a good thing that it is possible to appeal to people's sense of identity and generosity. We are better placed than the French to capitalise on that sense, and we should never take away the need for the local appeal.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my argument against the VAT burden on churches, and I trust that she will rattle the knocker on the door of No. 11 Downing street in the next few weeks. One burden that churches bear and which, to a degree, takes away much of the good effect of state aid, is VAT. The VAT on repairs to listed buildings especially on churches, should be dealt with. I have urged that churches should be zero-rated or exempted. If that matter could be dealt with, it would be the biggest Christmas present or Easter gift that any Government could give the churches.
I want to dwell upon cathedrals, which are, in the truest sense of the word, a unique group of buildings. They are the greatest collection of buildings in this country. They are the only collection of historic buildings that are not eligible for significant grant from public funds. That is a curious and unfortunate paradox.
We should also remind ourselves that, although there are 42 dioceses in the Church of England and therefore 42 cathedrals, a number of those cathedrals are elevated parish churches. Although they are important and some of them are beautiful buildings. We are talking about the purpose-built cathedrals of what is called the "old foundation", the original cathedrals of the dioceses of England and Wales and of those cathedrals of the "new foundation" that Henry VIII created as cathedrals, such as Gloucester. Therefore, we are dealing with a small group of famous and beautiful buildings.
From Exeter to Durham, appeals are just completed, under way or pending. While my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury was speaking, I jotted down the places where such appeals are going ahead. I apologise in advance to the deans and chapters concerned if I miss any out. Appeals have either been completed, are under way or pending in

Salisbury, Winchester, Wells, Lincoln, Lichfield, Ely, Worcester, Gloucester, York and Hereford, to name just a few.
Consider the gems that are being safeguarded—for example, the marvellous work that has just been carried out to safeguard the west front of Wells cathedral, the greatest mediaeval sculpture gallery in the country. Consider the work that has been done to safeguard the lantern tower of Ely cathedral, the most wonderful piece of precision engineering of the middle ages. Even now, people do not quite understand how it was done. Consider what is being done to safeguard the tower at Salisbury, arguably the single most beautiful part of any cathedral in this country.
Consider what is being done at Lincoln and what has recently been done in York to repair the ravages of fire. The skills of separate craftsmen were harnessed to ensure that the great northern cathedral will be in an even better condition in the next century than in this. I am tempted to go on, but I shall not. We roust recognise these gems for what they are.
I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will readily concede that any Government who sat back and allowed the spire of Salisbury to collapse, the lantern at Ely to cave in, or the statues on Wells to be eroded out of all recognition, would not deserve to be called a civilised Government, whatever their party or achievements. We all acknowledge the public obligation that any Government have on behalf of us all.
Cathedrals are more than mere buildings. I was slightly surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury did not mention their musical tradition. Within our cathedrals, more than anywhere else, the great tradition of English Church music—arguably our greatest contribution to music—is upheld; but not without enormous cost. You and I, Mr. Speaker, know what it costs to keep a choir in St. Margaret's Westminster. Imagine the cost of a cathedral school.
I recently visited the Dean of Winchester, Trevor Beeston, who was formerly the rector of St. Margaret's and your Chaplain, Mr. Speaker. We discussed the great problems he has in maintaining the fabric of the cathedral. There are also problems, because of the costs, of sustaining the muscial tradition of the place. The cathedrals readily and gladly bear those costs. We must recognise that they do so on behalf of us all, if we believe, as I do, that their musical tradition is as much a part of our heritage as are their arts, architecture and contents.
How can these problems be dealt with? How can cathedrals sustain what they have and the responsibilities that they must continue to bear into the next century? Higherto, it has always been done by appeal, but there are limits to that. Lincoln is now on its fourth or fifth appeal in the past 20 years. Ely made a magnificent effort in raising £4 million from a fairly sparsely populated diocese. But it cannot be done time and time again. You and I, Mr. Speaker, would not be terribly happy if we had to raise another £1 million for St. Margaret's next week. We should find that difficult.
Cathedrals can do other things—charge for admission, for instance, as the Select Committee recommended they should. I have nothing against admission charges. Ely has decided to provide for regular day-to-day expenditure by levying such a charge with the proper exemptions: never on Sundays; a private chapel for prayer set aside so that those who go to pray pay nothing; and so on. But the vast


majority of people who go to cathedrals go to appreciate the art and architecture, not to pray. One wishes it were otherwise, but we must recognise the facts. It is no more intrusive upon a person's purpose or privacy to make him pay to go to a cathedral than to make him pay to go to a great country house.
Admission charges and appeals cannot and will not of themselves solve the problem. In one form or another, there must be state aid for the cathedrals. I want to commend a scheme to my hon. Friend the Minister. It has been buzzing around in my head for the past few weeks, especially since the controversy surrounding the Mappa Mundi erupted.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) here; he is doing so much in such a constructive way to solve that crisis in his constituency and native city. Hereford cathedral is off the beaten track and one must acknowledge that it is not among the top 10 architecturally, beautiful and important though it is. But it has enormous liabilities and responsibilities and must raise several million pounds. There is a dispute about the precise amount, but now is not the time or place to go into that. That it needs several million pounds is not in dispute.
The cathedral has among its contents a wonderful chained library and one of the rarest and most important medieval manuscripts in the world—the Mappa Mundi. It is a unique object. In deciding how best to solve their problems, the dean and chapter of Hereford thought of selling the map. I regret that, and I regret the way that they have gone about it—much as I understand and sympathise with their problems—because I believe that the dean and chapter of any cathedral are its trustees for posterity and should not sell treasures that they have inherited. Communion plate and objects such as the map are as much a part of the fabric and being of the place as the stones of which it is constructed.
By making the provisional decision that they have—I trust that it is a provisional decision, that the map will be withdrawn from sale and they will find another solution—the dean and chapter have created a Mentmore-type catalyst. Those hon. Members who were here at the time will remember when Lord Rosebery's house at Mentmore was put up for sale. We made strenuous efforts to save it for the nation. I asked a private notice question in the House, and I remember taking a deputation to see the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), begging the Government to provide just over —2 million to save Mentmore and its contents for the nation. The Government declined. I make no party point, because, as always, the deputation that I took was all-party. It included Lord Goodman and several Labour Members. We could not persuade the Secretary of State, and at the end of the day the Government ended up paying double what they would have spent on acquiring a few objects for museums. Mentmore is now the headquarters of a slightly bizarre sect. They are looking after the fabric, but the contents have been dispersed.
The catalytic effect of Mentmore was considerable, because it led to pressure for the re-creation of the national land fund, which was set up by Lord Dalton at the end of the war as a memorial to those who perished in it. Fifty million pounds was put on one side to try to preserve some aspects of our heritage. It was never properly used; it was

an accounting procedure fiddled by successive Governments. I shall not weary or distress the House by recounting the extraordinary manner in which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer of both parties behaved in this regard; suffice it to say that, as a result of Mentmore, the National Heritage Memorial Fund was established, with a much smaller endowment than it should have had, taking into account what was originally put on one side and the interest that should have accrued therefrom. But it was a significant step, and the fund has been administered brilliantly by Lord Charteris, one of the most distinguished public servants that Britain has had the privilege of having for many years. What he has done with the fund is the most distinguished of all his public duties.
I believe that we should compile a Domesday book or inventory of all the treasures in our great cathedrals. Then the Government should talk to the deans and chapters of those cathedrals about acquiring some of those objects and leaving them in situ. There is a precedent for that.
In Hagley hall in Worcestershire, there is a marvellous set of tapestries which were woven for the room in which they are situated. When the late Lord Cobham died, the present Lord Cobham and his trustees negotiated with the Treasury a deal whereby taxes were part paid in lieu of the surrender of certain objects. There are many precedents for that, going back many years, but the tapestries remain in situ, the argument being that they would have been of much less value, importance and interest displayed anywhere other than their historic and original setting.
That is not the only example; there are others. The first was a great portrait at Donington in Lincolnshire. I suggest that there is a marvellous precedent here for cathedrals. If some of the great objects that they possess, such as the chained library and the Mappa Mundi at Hereford, and St. Chad's gospel in my diocesan cathedral, were transferred in ownership to the state, which then accepted responsibility for the upkeep, the objects remained in situ and the money given was then used as an endowment by which the cathedral's daily needs could be met, we should be moving towards a real solution to our cathedrals' problems.
The proposal has many things to commend it, not least the fact that probably the collective cost of such an operation, bearing in mind the small number of buildings involved, would be little more than the £50 million to which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury referred in his admirable opening speech. Fifty million pounds is a trivial sum of money. It is less than three times what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to safeguard eggs only yesterday. There are egg farmers in my constituency on whose behalf I have pleaded genuinely, but perhaps the Minister will consider the value of an egg when weighed against that of a great cathedral.
If, in a temporary emergency, the Government can quite rightly find £17 million to £20 million for eggs, can they not, for the sake of future generations, think this Christmas of finding about £50 million to ensure that the cathedrals, which are our greatest national treasures and enshrine within them so much of the fabric of our civilisation, will delight and uplift future generations as they have delighted and uplifted us?

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and congratulate him on securing this debate at this appropriate time. I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on the wide-ranging set of solutions that he has proposed. I defer to his expertise in this matter. I know the many years that he has spent in looking after these matters, both inside the House and outside, and I pay tribute to his success in so many spheres.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for the way in which he opened the debate. He remarked on the experience that he was given at the age of 11 when introduced to the Magna Carta. I can duplicate that in a curious way as I was introduced to the Mappa Mundi at the age of 11 and have enjoyed looking at it regularly, almost every time that I have visited the cathedral in Hereford, and showing it to my friends from all over the world. It is a tour de force in the visible history of the world as it was perceived in 1289. It is significant that in January it will have resided in Hereford cathedral for 700 years with very brief trips out in the last couple of years for exhibitions. It is very much part of our heritage.
The Mappa Mundi and the proposal by the dean and chapter to sell it has certainly focused minds on the problem and that is the reason why, at the end of this long session through the night, we are discussing it at this moment.
I want to pay tribute to the Dean of Hereford. He is not the most popular man in Hereford at the moment and he is not the most popular man in my book because he is initiating the sale of the Mappa Mundi. However, I understand his problem. I pay tribute to him because he took on the office of dean in the Hereford diocese six years ago, knowing full well that the cathedral finances were in a parlous state. He has worked tirelessly to put those finances back on to a proper footing.
It is enormously sad that, after many exhortations and the conclusion of an appeal for £1 million, we still need a substantial amount of money. My criticism, which I have made before, is that the way in which the matter has emerged and taken us by surprise is reprehensible. Nevertheless, the problem demonstrates the tip of an iceberg whose size and scope was well identified by my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury and for Staffordshire, South and by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
It is no light matter to take on the office of dean in a cathedral knowing that one is responsible for its fabric which one must leave in a better state for the next dean than it was when it was taken on. If the Dean of Hereford sometimes looks slightly worried, no doubt as other deans look, I can understand.
The proposed sale of the Mappa Mundi has brought to our attention the stresses faced by deans and chapters across the country. It is a pity that we should consider using the artefacts of a cathedral to deal with a cathedral's fabric. I must dissent slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South because I believe that Hereford has one of the most exciting cathedrals that I know. Perhaps familiarity brings that home to one. I sit with joy in its warm pink stone glow, which I think is

unique among cathedrals—although I accept that fabric problems in the past have meant that the south-western side is not as the architect designed it.
As I visit that cathedral I reflect that the cathedrals that comprise the three-choir circuit have the same problems. Gloucester cathedral has just begun an appeal and Worcestershire's appeal is already under way. All the appeals are transitory and are drawing ever more on the scarce resources of a part of the country which is not so heavily populated as others and which is not so often visited by tourists.
We must therefore look for solutions to those problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned tourism. Yes, tourists visit Hereford cathedral and others. However, for every solution there is a problem. In that case, the cathedral architect stated in a letter in The Times that the wear and tear brought about by tourism constitutes an even greater burden on the fabric. We cannot just take on the question of enhancing tourism without considering the consequences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned Salisbury cathedral's car parking problems. There is no car park anywhere near Hereford cathedral. An admissions policy has to encompass an admission charge that will encourage visitors and not deter them. It cannot be thought of as a cornucopia or bottomless well.
One must look a little wider than tourism. The overall concept of marketing is certainly important, and it is vital that tourists and other visitors are made aware of what Hereford has to offer. Hereford as a city must recognise that there is a problem. I am delighted that Hereford city council, although not of a persuasion friendly to myself, recognises its duty in that respect.
It is inconceivable from a tourist's point of view, or even from that of an ordinary, everyday resident, to think of Hereford without its cathedral, which dominates the city and is seen by everybody, from every approach. It is part of the city, and regardless of whether one is Church of England or of any other denomination or faith, one cannot gainsay the cathedral's existence and its dominant role in the city. The same applies to other cathedral cities that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members mentioned; they are all part of our heritage. That they are is recognised by the Church, and within the General Synod, by the development of the care of cathedrals measure. It will, on the face of it, provide a first-class mechanism for preventing the sale of artefacts, as a fabric committee will sit to decide such matters and will have a veto. The same will apply to any changes to a cathedral's structure. At present, such matters are for the dean and the chapter to decide.
When the House debates the care of the cathedrals measure in due course, after it has been before the General Synod, it will no doubt support the General Synod's wishes. We shall open one new avenue to cathedral chapters for resolving certain of their financial difficulties. Whether we agree is another matter.
It is incumbent upon the House to recognise that it must offer alternative solutions, and therefore we are right to address ourselves to finding appropriate remedies. I am attracted to the kind of solution suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury in his latter remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South added dimensions, suggesting a different way of providing the same mechanism. I do necessarily follow the line of, in


effect, turning artefacts into money and displaying them—though I acknowledge that that is what I seek to achieve in respect of Hereford. That is a short-term expedient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South gave the problem dimensions by relating it to the egg industry's difficulties. It is appropriate to think of that level of funding, so that a grant mechanism may be established that will address both the immediate and long-term repairs to the fabric of our major cathedrals, bearing in mind their overall heritage aspects. Those cathedrals may have been built many years ago for the glory of God, but today they exist to please the soul and the eye of everyone in this country and a wider public. We have a financial responsibility to look to our own taxpayers' money, recognising that Governments have no money other than that of their taxpayers. It will certainly give me pleasure to see my taxes employed in that way.
I wish to raise briefly a nuts and bolts problem. I am surprised at the attitude of English Heritage to Hereford cathedral's difficulty. The cathedral has been negotiating with English Heritage for a grant towards the repair of the college of Vicars Choral, and during the ensuing correspondence it has been given a verbal go-ahead to start work in view of the urgent need for the repairs. On 18 November, the day after it was announced that Mappa Mundi was to be offered for sale, English Heritage wrote to the cathedral architects saying, in effect, "We no longer play the game of offering grants. You are about to receive some money, and we do not give money where money is already in hand."
I hope that that was a knee-jerk reaction—and an understandable one—to a change in circumstances. I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ask English Heritage to reconsider. I should like to think that it will continue its grant aid until the cathedral's problem is resolved, by whatever means, and then review the position. The cathedral has offered to repay with interest any grant moneys given by English Heritage which could be used now, as and when the cathedral receives any funds from the sale or from whatever alternative mechanism it develops to resolve the problem. I thought that a very reasonable approach, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to ask English Heritage to enable such important work to go ahead.
We have a responsibility, both nationally and locally. I want a solution which reflects the local pride and sense of proprietorship inspired by the cathedral, and which also recognises that it is there for a far wider enjoyment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): This has been a thoughtful and interesting debate on a subject of great importance and interest. All hon. Members' contributions have shown personal commitment and depth of experience, but I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on gaining the debate in the first place. I am not sure when he went to Salisbury cathedral school, or whether he was so young that the Jesuits could say that they had got him quickly enough to implant a love of cathedrals firmly in his mind for ever—not that he went to a Jesuit school; I was merely making an analogy.
Churches are one of the most precious components of our heritage. Hon. Members have paid tribute to particular churches or cathedrals that have meant much to them—gems being safeguarded. As my hon. Friend said, more people visit our churches and cathedrals than visit all the National Trust properties and ancient monuments put together.
There is widespread evidence of the loving care with which local communities have supported their churches over the centuries. Just as with other historic buildings, those best placed to cherish and care for them are the owners—the users. In that sense a church or chapel belongs to its congregation in much the same way as the stately home belongs to its incumbent for the time being. In each case it is seen as a duty to hand it down to future generations. It is a sense of stewardship as much as one of ownership. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) referred to the sense of local identity and responsibility generated by people having a building in their midst that is of spiritual significance as well as having a historic heritage.
When the Government came to power in 1979 we inherited a system of state aid for parish churches and chapels, worked out after several years of negotiation between Government and Churches. It is a good system which after 11 years seems to be standing the test of time well, and in England it is administered by English Heritage. For this purpose, outstanding churches—which generally mean most grade I or grade II star listed churches—are eligible for repair grants under section 3A of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. Only parish churches and their non-Anglican equivalents are eligible. Cathedrals, with which I shall deal in a few moments, are excluded.
I should stress that the administration of the scheme and the terms on which grants are offered are entirely matters for English Heritage. We do not interfere. We do not second-guess. It is also English Heritage's responsibility to decide how much of its budget should be allocated to this heading, within the normal Treasury guidelines. I would point out to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that recently I visited a magnificent Nonconformist chapel—the Jireh chapel in Lewes. It is a wonderfully original chapel. Its original furnishings are intact. The chapel belongs to a Calvinistic sect. With most generous and substantial grant from English Heritage the chapel is being carefully and meticulously restored.
We want English Heritage to be provided with adequate resources for the tasks to which we consider it should give priority. That is why, in the context of discussions with the Churches about the community charge, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that he would be taking three steps to offset the extra costs for Churches of all denominations.
First, it has been decided that non-domestic buildings that are used to support the organisation of religious worship will qualify for 100 per cent. rate relief from 1 April 1990.
Secondly, we shall be increasing the resources for the redundant churches fund that is financed jointly by the Department and the Church Commissioners. We are also increasing the Department's share of the fund's grant in aid from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. That will indirectly benefit the Church of England by freeing resources for the living Church.


Thirdly, we are providing an extra £3 million a year to English Heritage from 1990–91 onwards to enable it to increase its programme of historic church repair grants. Again, that is an indirect form of assistance, but it will provide much-needed relief for congregations, which are struggling under heavy maintenance burdens. It will also help to stave off the threat of redundancy in many cases. All denominations will benefit from it.
A church that is still in use as part of an active community is much more likely to be looked after. Hon. Members know of the ingenuity of many congregations in raising funds. The assistance that English Heritage gives can play a vital role in gaining and multiplying private resources and giving congregations the confidence to carry on.
Sometimes there is no choice and churches have to be declared redundant. The redundant churches fund provides help for redundant Anglican churches. That worthy body has now been in existence for over 20 years. By preserving the best of our historic churches that no longer have a regular pastoral use, we are responding to a secular delight in beautiful buildings and architecture as well as to the religious dimension. It is therefore right that the nation as a whole, the wider community, should pay its share. Partnership arrangements are therefore entirely appropriate.
We have recently reviewed the funding of the redundant churches fund. As the order under which we pay it will expire at the end of March 1989, we have considered with the redundant churches fund and the Church Commissioners, our partners in the payment, how much we should allocate to the fund for the next quinquennium. We recognise also that the Government's community charge will place additional burdens on Churches. That is why we propose to increase the fund's budget in real terms and to raise the Government's percentage contribution to the fund from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. in the next quinquennium. Both the Department and the Church Commissioners agree that the time is right to carry out a review of the remit, the operation and the procedures of the fund, to ensure that we have struck the right balance. We are considering the precise scope of that review with the Church Commissioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury referred to the suggestion that there should be a fund for redundant Nonconformist churches and chapels. English Heritage would have to consider that proposal. I know that it is considering ways in which some of the additional resources that have been allocated to church repairs might be used to benefit the most important redundant churches of the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist denominations. Some argue that that might entail support for an independent equivalent of the redundant churches fund. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion when I consider the matter further.
As for the cathedrals, first I shall say a few words about the Mappa Mundi. Many hon. Members have mentioned it, in particular my hon. Friend the member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who has played a key role in our discussions in this place on that most valued item. It is important to recognise that the proposal by the dean and chapter to sell the map appears to be motivated by concerns which range considerably more widely than the physical fabric. It is understood that the cathedral recently had a successful appeal and now has most of what it needs

for the immediate future. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South paid tribute to the endeavours of the dean in seeking the financial security of the cathedral.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has stated in the House his wish that a solution could be achieved involving private and public sectors that would be acceptable to all parties. He firmly believes that it should be possible to find a solution that would keep the map in Britain. He is working with all the parties involved to that end.
My hon. Friend mentioned the care of cathedrals measure. We were very glad to see that the draft care of cathedrals measure gained the broad approval of the General Synod in November. It is a most encouraging move, after the previous difficulties encountered by the earlier draft in the February session of Synod. It is in all our interests—the Government's as well as the Church of England's—to ensure that there is an effective system for safeguarding the fabric of the cathedrals, which form such an important and magnificent part of our national heritage, and for ensuring that major building works to them are given careful consideration.
The work of mission, of course, is the Church's task. I venture the thought that an awareness of heritage can be part of mission; a beautiful historic well-cared-for building can itself be an inspiration arid an aid to worship. That is not to suggest that all cathedrals must remain pickled in Gothic, or neo-Gothic, aspic—far from it. I am sure that mission, like civilisation itself, must be alive and responsive to the present. It is surely right to ensure that the new blends appropriately with the old, in both the secular and the ecclesiastical heritage.
By ensuring scope for public consultation over proposals, including proposals for the sale of important historical or artistic objects, the Measure would enable all the aspects of a proposed sale to be carefully considered before it could take place. This is clearly highly relevant to the Mappa Mundi.
On the general question of state aid for cathedral buildings, they are, as I made clear, excluded from English Heritage's scheme of repair grants. English Heritage is maintaining the practice established in 1977 when state aid for historic churches was first introduced. In discussion with the Government of the day, the Church of England recommended that parish churches should be given priority. That was based on the Church's own belief that cathedrals were very much better placed than parish churches to raise substantial sums of money from the public and other private sources, because of their pre-eminent position as centres of pilgrimage, culture and tourism. It is significant that no major cathedral restoration appeal to date has failed. Tribute has been paid to the many magnificent appeals in recent years and to the valiant efforts by many deans and chapters to maximise the revenue from their cathedrals.
If the Church of England now thinks that circumstances have changed so radically since 1977 that the basis of the policy is out of date, it must make representations to English Heritage, which will be happy to discuss the matter. I have heard the strength of feeling among hon. Members during the debate. Our understanding of the feeling among the officers of the General Synod is that the position has not changed and the needs of parish churches are greater now than ever. We are confident that our policy


of providing extra resources for English Heritage for historic churches—including non-Anglican churches—is the right one.
Hon. Members have made other suggestions about how cathedrals should be considered, and I shall certainly give them further thought.
Although the Department's heritage budget has risen from about £31 million in 1979–80 to more than £90 million in 1988–89, public resources for the heritage are clearly not unlimited. If English Heritage were to start grant-aiding cathedrals on any significant scale, there would have to be reordered priorities within its historic churches repair grants budget.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned ecclesiastical exemption. That is a tricky subject. When state aid was introduced for parish churches in 1977, the Government agreed that it would be unnecessary to legislate on the exemption for the initial trial period while the Church of England undertook to carry out a review of its internal faculty jurisdictions system. The faculty jurisdiction committee was set up in 1980 under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Chichester and it reported in 1984. It recommended some revision of the existing system for parish churches, particularly to make the system more accessible by increasing publicity and consultation. It also recommended a new statutory system for cathedrals in place of the advisory system which had operated previously. I understand that the Church felt that, if it was to overhaul its system, it should be assured of retaining ecclesiastical exemptions.
It has taken the Church of England considerable time to bring into effect the reforms promised in the 1984 report. Many of the conservation bodies have expressed considerable concern about the delay and have wondered publicly whether the Church of England is serious in its commitment. As I have said, we are encouraged by the progress made so far on the draft cathedrals Measure. Obviously, we shall watch the situation closely. Meanwhile, we have been working on the contents of the proposed order. It has not been easy to translate Lord Skelmersdale's original commitment into action. However, I hope to be able to resolve the matter soon.
I appreciate the various contributions that have been made to the important debate. This is a timely occasion on which to discuss a matter of great concern to hon. Members. We value the significance of church buildings in our national heritage and take the needs of historic churches seriously. That can be seen from the fact that offers of repair grants have risen from about £500,000 in 1978–79 to a budgeted £6 million in the current financial year. By 1990–91, thanks to the additional resources we provided, it is expected to rise to £9 million. I know that English Heritage will continue to give priority to the programme and we shall be discussing regularly with it ways in which assistance for historic churches and buildings can be targeted equitably and cost-effectively. I shall draw the valuable, thoughtful and considered responses of hon. Members to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Orders of the Day — Racial Harassment

Mr. Harry Cohen: Tens of thousands of families in Britain will have to endure misery, unpleasantness and the fear of racial harassment this Christmas and throughout the year. They will not understand the procedures of the House. We have not discussed racial harassment all year and we have sat through the night but we can allocate only three minutes to debate their plight. They will think that we are ridiculing their plight and that this is a racist Parliament, and they are probably right.
Many cases are horrific and we could have spent the night just talking about them. For example, I am currently dealing with a case involving a single woman with five children who was a victim of a racial attack. The police put her in the cells for four hours. Also, 300 white youths attacked the Loughborough Hindu festival and the police were tardy in arriving to assist. That led to a demonstration by the Hindu community at the police station.
There is also the case of a couple who were refused a transfer after racial harassment because it was said that they had left the country and gone to Arabia for a year. In fact, they lived in Arabia house in Tower Hamlets. That local authority mistake left them to be further harassed.
Police figures show that in 1987 there was a 26 per cent. increase in racial attacks in the metropolitan police area. Racial harassment should be a specific criminal offence. The Government have dilly-dallied too long. They should galvanise the police to make swift responses whenever harassment occurs and to push ahead with prosecutions. I will give the Minister a minute to reply.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for allowing me a minute.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not mean what he said when he accused the House of being racist. He was quite wrong, but these issues must be addressed. He seems to have forgotten the Public Order Act 1986, which has extended the offence of incitement to racial hatred. It is clear that the Government are moving swiftly when and where they can to introduce new measures where possible.

Mr. Alistair Darling: What research has been done into the workings of the 1986 Act and how many prosecutions and successful convictions have been obtained under it? There is a fear that, although the framework is there, it is not being implemented.

Mr. Patten: I am extremely glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. Information available centrally shows that in 1987 there were six prosecutions under sections 18 to 23 of the Act for racial harassment. No information is available for 1988—

It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

Settle-Carlisle Railway

Mr. Tony Favell: I wish to present a petition bearing 2,000 signatures collected by Victor and Elizabeth Dent of Woodsmoor in my constituency seeking the continuation of the most beautiful of railway lines—the Settle-Carlisle railway. I humbly present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Stanley Royd Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. William O'Brien: I am pleased to have this opportunity to express concern about staffing procedures and staffing in general at the Stanley Royd hospital, which is situated in my constituency.
Stanley Royd hospital is part of a major hospital complex. The site area of the total facility is 100 acres, of which three quarters form the grounds of Stanley Royd hospital. It serves the population of Ossett, Stanley, Wrenthorpe and Wakefield city area, and it accommodates the mentally ill and elderly severely mentally infirm. It provided a full range of psychiatric services, a clinic, a day hospital and occupational and industrial therapy, and included a regional secure unit.
In 1936, the hospital could accommodate 2,678 patients, but in 1984 there were only just over 830. In August 1984, there was a severe outbreak of food poisoning that affected just: over half the patients a nd resulted in the deaths of 19.
A public inquiry was held to investigate the outbreak of food poisoning, which took over a year to report. The report was presented to the Secretary of State in January 1986. The cause of the food poisoning was the preparation of food in an old, unworthy and unhealthy kitchen in the hospital. The kitchen was significantly criticised by the inquiry, and reference was made to the lack of capital to improve facilities, which was the true problem. If only a proportion of the money spent on cook-chill had been spent on the kitchen, that outbreak of salmonella food poisoning could have been avoided.
The inquiry recommended that the regional health authority should consider withdrawing funds from Stanley Royd hospital as population decreased. It also criticised understaffing in the hospital. The kitchen was understaffed, with the result that cleaning schedules fell into arrears. Considerable evidence was given to the inquiry about staffing levels, and Stanley Royd has had the lowest staff-patient ratio in the district. In 1984, there were 38 fewer qualified nurses than were allowed on the establishment. Because of unqualified nurses and student nurses, that deficit was reduced to 29. It has always been hard to recruit qualified staff at that hospital. The present management are not working in the best interests of the hospital with the application of the present grading structure.
I ask for a full investigation into the way in which regrading has been applied at Stanley Royd hospital, particularly in view of the comments that were made in the inquiry report on staffing levels and the food poisoning outbreak. That investigation should also cover the proposed cook-chill system and its implementation. The Minister advised of amendments to the original 1980 guidelines for the application of cook-chill food processing, but the amendments have been withdrawn because of the listeria case that has come about in the neighbouring district health authority area of Leeds.
Because of the history of Stanley Royd to which I have referred and the public inquiry's recommendations, I ask the Minister to assure me that the cook-chill food process which is proposed for Stanley Royd hospital will not be implemented until the amended guidelines to the 1980


guide are issued by his Department. The new guidelines should be applied when the change in food preparation and distribution system is in place in Stanley Royd hospital. Failure to give me that assurance today will show a lack of compassion on the part of the Minister towards people in my constituency who suffered from past mismanagement, and feelings in my constituency will be heightened if the new Department of Health guidelines are not applied. Will the Minister address that matter?
Staff at all levels at Stanley Royd hospital have not only suffered the trauma of 1984, when much publicity was given to the salmonella outbreak, but been under immense pressure. Morale was low on that occasion. Morale is low now because of the way in which grading structures have been applied.
Paragraph 118 of the inquiry's report states:
we heard a considerable amount about nursing levels from Mr. McEnroe, the District Nursing Officer, who agreed that Stanley Royd had one of the lowest staff-patient ratios in the district.
It goes on:
In 1984 the aim was to have a ratio of qualified to unqualified staff of 60/40, at that time it was 52/48.
On the night shift of 30 November this year, the funded establishment was 114·5 full-time equivalent nurses. In post were 99·5, a shortfall of 15 staff or 17 per cent. of the establishment. Of those 99·5 staff, 43·25 were nursing assistants. In addition to the 17 per cent. shortage of nurses, 43 per cent. were unqualified. They are the very people who significantly carry the work load in the 26 wards of Stanley Royd hospital.
All those nursing assistants are paid on the lowest possible grade—grade A—and because of their grading as laid down by the Department of Health, all of them must be supervised. On the night of 30 November—a typical working night—only 6·25 of the other 56 staff were sisters or nurses in charge. Because on the night shift there is no senior management, two of the 6·25 nurses were acting as care group managers, leaving just over four nurses or sisters or nurses in charge on duty for the 26 wards.
The problem of supervision at Stanley Royd is dramatically highlighted by an examination of the composition of the staff on duty. In addition to the hospital being 17 nurses short and to 43 of the 99 nurses on duty being nursing assistants, a further 41 nurses were enrolled nurses on grades C and D, the lowest grades in the structure. The staffing malaise at Stanley Royd, with particular reference to the night shift, is such that out of 99 nurses—of whom two were taken to manage the hospital leaving 97—84 are in the lowest paid majority and are untrained to attend to patients in 26 wards.
According to the formula set by the Department of Health, all those 84 nurses require supervision by the 13 or 14 charge nurses and staff nurses—of whom 10 are staff nurses—who are also paid the D and E grades, which are minimum grades in the supervisory area—the lower grade in the grading structure. It is significant that, because of the shortage of staff, nurses are having to work their shift without a meal break, with no extra pay for the extra work. It is diabolical that in 1988 people should have to work through their meal breaks because the authority will not recruit extra qualified staff.
The imperfect staffing is cruel to those employed in Stanley Royd hospital, and should not be allowed to

continue. I ask the Minister to take a personal interest in the concern that I have expressed, with a view to reviewing the staff grades at Stanley Royd, which are abysmally inadequate to reward people for the work that they are doing. I make that request because the management has failed in its duty to carry out a proper and fair assessment of gradings.
If the Minister would agree to investigate the matter, I would rest my case there. If he does not agree to do that, I must remonstrate and place more of the cruel anomalies of mismanagement on the official record. I am determined to continue to highlight what is happening at Stanley Royd hospital until justice is obtained for the people who work there.
The Minister will undoubtedly refer to the new chairman, who was appointed recently, and tell me to give him a chance. But I say to the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority and the Minister that they have deserted the cause of the Wakefield health authority. I make that allegation because the Department of Health accepted the report and findings of the regional inquiry of July this year into the management of Wakefield district health authority.
That report recommended that Sir Jack Smart should be replaced as chairman by a person who had no connection with the authority as at present constituted. It must be made clear that Mr. Brian Hayward, who is now the chairman, has been involved with Wakefield district health authority because he was chairman of a very important committee which reported on the controversial cook-chill system of providing meals in the Wakefield district health authority area. It is strongly suspected that the appointment of Mr. Brian Hayward is to ensure that the cook-chill system is applied, so as to justify the enormous sums spent on this project, to which the regional health authority, of which Mr. Hayward was a member, is committed. The scenario involving Wakefield district health authority continues.
The appointment of Mr. Hayward signifies how much of a travesty of justice that regional inquiry was, and what a charade were the gradings of nurses under the recent wage awards. No negotiations with the nurses' representatives took place. Letters were sent to nurses informing them that they would be paid on grade E, but a few weeks later they were informed that they would be downgraded to grade D.
Morale is low. People are working under great stress. There is a shortage of trained nurses, and people are doing the work but are not paid adequately. Meal breaks cannot be taken because there is no one to cover. At times, supervision is wholly inadquate. There is no provision to replace nurses off sick or on holiday. The training programme is being cut. On the short-term mental illness training programme for 1989–90, there is a cut of 15 people. How can any Government or authority endorse such a programme of devastation, particularly in view of the public inquiry into salmonella food poisoning in 1984, which on page 112 recommends:
efforts to improve the ratio of qualified to unqualified staff must continue and the recruitment of all staff to at least the presently permitted establishment should be pursued with vigour.
Two years after the report was presented, the hospital is still not staffed to establishment.
What is the Minister doing about that? Will he investigate staffing levels and the work load of nurses who


have to care for patients in hospital in order to give families at home a rest? These patients are not hospital-orientated, and they require more attention. Will he investigate the management structure of the hospital on the night shift when charge nurses are withdrawn from supervisory duties? Will he give an assurance that, before the cook-chill meals system is applied by Wakefield district health authority, the guidelines amending the 1980 Ministry of Health guidelines will be applied? Will he consider the matter to be serious? Finally, will he visit the hospital and listen to the views of all those involved in its running and management, and those of the nurses?

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): In looking for something kind to say at Christmas, the best thing I can say about the speech by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is that it was not as outrageous as that to which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) treated us the last time this matter was discussed in the House as recently as 25 October.
At that time the hon. Member for Wakefield made what may turn out to he the highly expensive mistake of choosing to disseminate some of his outrageous allegations to the press before speaking in the Chamber. As a result, what he said is now the subject of legal action. So I have nothing further to say on cook-chill and nothing further to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said in reply to that debate.
It is an interesting starting point for this debate that the hon. Gentleman should be trying to stir the pot about what is happening in the Stanley Royd hospital. He knows of the schisms and difficulties in Wakefield district health authority. I notice somewhat disobliging references to Mr. Brian Hayward and it is evidence of the way in which politics has so catastrophically intervened in the affairs of that authority that he should speak so of Mr. Hayward, notwithstanding Mr. Hayward's career throughout his working life as a trade union official. One would have expected that the hon. Gentleman would want to work with Mr. Hayward to improve the situation within the district health authority, instead of which, he and his hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield appear to be siding with dissident elements in the district health authority with the aim and impact of perpetuating the schisms and difficulties that have caused everyone who cares about the Health Service so much distress in Wakefield, and which I hope the appointment of Mr. Hayward will do much to rectify.
Suffice it to say, before we turn to the detail of the situation at the Stanley Royd hospital, which I am more than content to do, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that this appears to be the last stand—the Alamo—for COHSE militancy. It is one of the last places in the country where COHSE militants are maintaining industrial action. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman, who would not normally be regarded as one of the more militant Members of the House, should feel that his duty to his constituents is not to advise people to get on with their work in accordance with the professional standards that the community so respects and admires in nurses, and to eschew industrial action, but feel that he should act as the spokesman for a narrow and sectarian trade union view—a view which by no stretch of the imagination could be

thought to be either in the best interests of the Health Service or of his local community, who would like to see the Wakefield district health authority respond perhaps rather better to some of the challenges that face it than it has in the past.
None of us wants the Wakefield district health authority to lag behind what is happening in the rest of the country, where there is not this political dogfight. Apparently, that even extends to the local authority having lost confidence in two of the members of the authority which it nominated, including one of those most prominent as a COHSE official, who no doubt briefed the hon. Gentleman for this debate. We want to see an end to some of this nonsense. We want the Wakefield district health authority to be well run. However, it will only achieve that if community-elected representatives are prepared to rally round and be responsible.
I would like to spend the rest of the time available to me saying a little about the nurses' new grading structure, because we speak in a month when the largest pay rise ever paid to the nursing profession in the history of the NHS is arriving in nurses' pay packets, including in most cases substantial sums of back pay. As with the greatly improved industrial relations climate nationally—alas, not entirely shared at Wakefield—nurses, too, are realising what an outstanding deal this is, not only because of the cash benefits, but because the new structure allows nurses for the first time a proper career ladder in clinical medicine.
Of course, one understands—it is inevitable—that the picture throughout the country will vary. It was never envisaged that every nurse would get the same increase as the next. That would have been a straightforward pay award. We were petitioned by the Royal College of Nursing and others to carry out a regrading exercise, and everyone knew that there would be a good spread. Inevitably, the mental institutions, where there is a high level of dedicated, but nevertheless unqualified nursing staff—nursing auxiliaries—obviously will not see as many large rises as has been the case in a number of the acute units. That is an inevitable consequence of the way in which medicine is structured today.
I point out to those nursing auxiliaries who remain dissatisfied that, notwithstanding their unqualified status, all of them have received between 7·5 per cent. and 10 per cent. this year. That compares with the average increase for ancillary workers in the NHS as a whole—who are not deemed to be part of the nursing profession, as nursing auxiliaries are—of between 5 per cent. and 5·9 per cent. The mere fact that, in receiving 7·5 per cent. to 10 per cent., they have not received the large increases that have been determined for many sisters and staff nurses, should not disguise the fact that they have done far better than any other ancillary workers within the Service and have benefited enormously from the Government's decision, first, to have an independent pay review body and, secondly, to treat auxiliary nurses as part of the nursing profession, which is of great assistance to them in establishing their status. Overall, we believe that this is a good deal for nurses and that the hospital service is working efficiently and effectively as it has always done.

Mr. O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman spoke for more than 15 minutes and I now intend to—

Mr. O'Brien: Answer the debate.

Mr. Mellor: The more the hon. Gentleman barracks me the less time I shall have—

Mr. Don Dixon: Answer the debate, then.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman can shout like a fog horn, but he is not in order. Such interruptions will simply give me less time to answer the debate.
I have dealt with the extremely relevant points that were raised by the hon. Member for Normanton and I shall now consider the effect of the regrading structure on the Stanley Royd hospital. There is no such thing as a national average that applies to all institutions. At Stanley Royd, more nursing assistants, enrolled nurses and staff nurses have gone on to the basic grade, but, on the other hand, many enrolled nurses have gone onto the higher grade of E than is true of the national average. In fact, 98 per cent. of sisters and charge nurses have gone onto the higher grade of G at that hospital, compared with 61 per cent. for England.
The difference between 98 per cent. and 61 per cent. is striking and it shows that the reason for dissension at Stanley Royd—that, somehow or other, staff have done worse than any other in the country—cannot be justified. It is inevitable that there will be different grading outcomes, but I believe that Stanley Royd has come out well.

Mr. O'Brien: What about the shortages?

Mr. Mellor: It is true that we have spent most of this decade trying to build up the pay and conditions of the nursing profession from the disgraceful state in which it was left by the last Labour Government. During the lifetime of that Government, who cared rhetorically but failed to care in terms of their practical policies, there was a fall—

Mr. O'Brien: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mellor: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head—they are facts that cannot be denied.
Under the previous Labour Government, nurses' pay fell by 20 per cent. in real terms. Under this Government, nurses' pay has increased dramatically and many nurses are now 50 per cent. better off in real terms than they were under the Labour Government. In 1979, a sister at the top of her scale earned £96 a week. That same nursing sister can now earn at least £270 a week and in many cases markedly more than £300 a week. Such pay relates well to the attractiveness of nursing within the job market.
There has been no block grading at Stanley Royd. On the contrary, the figures on the outcome of the regrading exercise for individual districts show that individual

managers have gone about setting out the new grading structure in accordance with how they judge the local conditions. We have every confidence in the way in which the regrading exercise has been carried out at Stanley Royd.
If there are problems with the regrading structure at any individual hospital, there is a right of appeal that has been properly negotiated with the unions. It is a key part of the structure. It is absolutely—

Mr. O'Brien: No negotiations took place.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman seems singularly uninformed even at 9 o'clock on a December morning.
Some two and a half years of negotiations were conducted regarding the new grading structure—Stanley Royd does not stand outside that two-and-a-half-year consultation.
The hon. Member for Normanton and his colleagues stand for the national bargaining sytem. It may well be that most people who look for sensible progress within the NHS no longer regard that national bargaining system as essential. It is no good the hon. Member for Normanton wanting home rule for Stanley Royd hospital, because he and his colleagues stand four square behind the national bargaining system. The regrading structure took two and a half years to negotiate and, as a result of the negotiations, there is an appeals system. In fact, such an appeal system existed for a long time before those negotiations.
What is disgraceful is that unions will agree to a regrading structure, which has an appeals system to pick up any anomalies and which exists to be invoked, but political agitators within COHSE and NUPE, supported by hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Normanton, are prepared to accept industrial action. That is a return to the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s—the hon. Member for Normanton does not appear to have left those days. The unions seek a return to those days instead of going forward in a sensible way, geared to the good of the NHS rather than considering it a political battlefield.
As long as there is industrial action at hospitals such as Stanley Royd, there will be no satisfactory outcome for anyone. Certainly no one will benefit from any grading appeal while they are taking industrial action.
Even at this eleventh hour, I hope that the hon. Member for Normanton will try to play a constructive role in the affairs of his local health authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Nine o'clock.